ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

The Secretary of State was asked-

Gaza

Hugo Swire: What his latest assessment is of the humanitarian situation in Gaza; and if he will make a statement.

Alistair Carmichael: What his most recent assessment is of the humanitarian situation in Gaza; and if he will make a statement.

Douglas Alexander: The humanitarian situation in Gaza is extremely serious and will worsen now that the winter rains have started. Nearly a year after the conflict, 75 per cent. of Gazans still rely on some form of food aid, more than 60 per cent. do not have daily access to drinking water and 10 per cent. have no access to mains electricity. The United Kingdom continues to press Israel for full access to humanitarian aid in line with internationally accepted humanitarian principles.

Hugo Swire: What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the implications of the 18 million litres of raw and untreated sewage being discharged into the sea off Gaza for the population of Gaza and the surrounding environment?

Douglas Alexander: That is but one of the health consequences of the conditions currently being visited on the people of Gaza. As I said, we have made clear representations to the Israeli Government. Only yesterday, I spoke to Defence Minister Ehud Barak and pressed him for wider access to a range of humanitarian goods. The reconstruction effort that we all wanted to see after Operation Cast Lead has not been possible because of the constraints on access that continue to affect the community. The hon. Gentleman's point is well taken, and I can assure him that we take many opportunities to press the Israelis to ensure that the necessary reconstruction efforts are now made.

Alistair Carmichael: The Secretary of State will doubtless be aware that those seeking anything other than the most basic medical treatment in Gaza are required to travel abroad. However, in the period ending in June, no fewer than 40 per cent. of applications for travel permits for health care were refused by the Israeli Government. What pressure can he bring to bear to ensure that that situation improves?

Douglas Alexander: In recent days-as I said, only yesterday-I have spoken with Ehud Barak, and last week I met Mr. John Ging, the outstanding head of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, who is doing genuinely heroic work in extraordinarily difficult circumstances in the Gaza strip. That is testimony to the continuing efforts that we are making through a range of different channels to press not simply for greater humanitarian access, but ultimately for the necessary political resolution to the situation in the middle east, which would facilitate the kind of movement that the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Brian Iddon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that 8,000 children in Gaza are without school desks, and will he facilitate the importation of the metal components necessary to complete the construction of the desks?

Douglas Alexander: We seem to be in the rather bizarre situation in which desk parts for UNRWA schools have now been permitted to enter-I understand that some deliveries have been allowed-but the fittings necessary to assemble those desks have not. That is but one example of the difficulties being suffered in Gaza at the moment as a result of the constraint on movement and access. As I said, I discussed that position recently with John Ging, the head of UNRWA, and we will continue to press the Israelis to admit educational materials.

Richard Burden: Some 50,000 homes are estimated to have been destroyed during the Israeli attacks on Gaza, but cement, panes of glass and steel girders are still not getting in to repair them. I appreciate what my right hon. Friend says about his meetings with Mr. Barak, but if the Israelis are not listening, what are we going to do about it?

Douglas Alexander: I have sympathy with my hon. Friend, who has great knowledge of the region and the challenges facing it. In some ways, the difficulty is exemplified by the issue of cement. John Ging told me that Hamas is building a watchtower opposite the Israeli watchtower at the crossings using cement that presumably has been smuggled in through the tunnels from Egypt. However, at the same time, the Israelis are denying the cement to rebuild the schools that will give the young people of Gaza exactly the opportunities that hon. Members on both sides of the House would want them to enjoy. That is why we are continuing to press the Israelis. However, with humility we recognise that that is not a task for the United Kingdom alone. The European Union and the United State have key jobs, which is why we continue to work in international forums to press the case for those humanitarian supplies to be allowed in for reconstruction to take place.

Alistair Burt: What contribution does the Minister think might be made to ease the humanitarian situation by the release of Gilad Shalit, with all the possible implications for the improvement of relations should his captivity by Hamas be ended?

Douglas Alexander: Of course, we have called consistently on Hamas to release Gilad Shalit without further delays or any kind of conditions. Although we welcome the video tape released recently by Hamas, around 2 November, as part of the prisoner swap deal, the continued captivity of Gilad Shalit, as was raised with me by Ehud Barak, the Israeli Defence Minister, is utterly unacceptable. Hamas has a clear responsibility to release him without delay.

Jim Devine: Is it not time that the international community got together and took sanctions against Israel for its behaviour?

Douglas Alexander: I think that there is wide recognition on both sides of the House that continued humanitarian efforts are needed to support the people of Gaza and, indeed, the west bank, given the difficulties that currently afflict them. Equally, however, most hon. Members recognise that ultimately the resolution in the middle east lies in politics. I believe that the challenge at the moment is to get behind the efforts being made-I am glad to say-by President Barack Obama and his team, in the first year of his presidency, to support and facilitate the emergence of a comprehensive middle east peace plan. That seems to be the most effective way in which we can buttress the humanitarian work on which we are engaged.

Tuberculosis Programmes

Annette Brooke: What funding his Department provides to support national tuberculosis programmes in high-burden countries.

Michael Foster: The United Kingdom remains strongly committed to reducing death and suffering from tuberculosis and sees it as an important part of the global effort to improve the health of the poor. Our focus is the delivery of the global plan to stop TB, which aims to save 14 million lives. My Department combats TB through our contributions to multilateral organisations such as the World Health Organisation, partnerships such as Stop TB and the Global Fund, our bilateral programmes and our support for research.

Annette Brooke: I thank the Minister for his answer. Given that TB is a lead cause of death among those living with HIV, what proportion of that funding goes into supporting integrated services for people with TB and HIV, and what monitoring does his Department carry out on the impact of such funding?

Michael Foster: The hon. Lady is absolutely correct to point out the clear links between tuberculosis and HIV. Some 15 per cent. of new TB cases are among people living with HIV/AIDS. That is why we are looking to invest £6 billion to 2015 in whole-health systems and services, so that we can get diagnosis and treatment not just for people with TB or HIV/AIDS, but for people with a range of health problems.

Tom Clarke: Although I welcome the Minister's reply, may I draw to his attention the fact that the World Health Organisation has indicated that only six out of 10 smear-positive tests are being undertaken, even though the problems are increasing? Does he agree that we should use all our influence to ensure that new diagnostic tools are used wherever that is possible?

Michael Foster: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out the need for the speedy diagnosis of TB. That is why I am pleased to say that we as a Department have committed to giving some €60 million a year to UNITAID, which is aiming to triple access to rapid tests for multi-drug resistant TB by 2011.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Given the Select Committee on International Development's criticism of the Government's failure to act on the interaction between HIV and not just tuberculosis, but malaria and other diseases, and given also the fact that his Department has informed the Committee that it collects data only every two years, can the Minister give the House a positive assurance that we will see full transparency on the issue, full performance measurements, an impact assessment and an emphasis on outputs, and not just financial inputs, which is the Government's norm on such problems?

Michael Foster: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman that our focus is on inputs and not outputs. Nothing could be further from the truth. I would point out that if we are going to get the information that he requires in detail, it would mean health workers who provide primary care on a range of issues having to break down how they spend their time diagnosing TB on the one hand and, on the other, malaria, treating people with extreme forms of diarrhoea, and so on. The best thing that we can do is support whole-health systems to improve the health of a nation, particularly through an emphasis on primary care. That is what our £6 billion commitment is all about.

Gordon Banks: What more can my hon. Friend do to increase international support for UNITAID and its ambition to increase accessibility to low-cost drugs for TB, malaria and AIDS, especially as yesterday was world AIDS day?

Michael Foster: I am proud of my Department's record, with its contribution to investment in health, and UNITAID in particular. Next year's mid-term review of the millennium development goals might be an opportunity for our international partners to look at their contributions to development and perhaps take the opportunity to step up to the plate.

Afghanistan

Peter Lilley: What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of his Department's activities in Afghanistan; and if he will make a statement.

Douglas Alexander: My Department's latest Afghanistan country programme evaluation was published in May this year. Although the challenges remain daunting, life for many Afghans is improving, with support from the United Kingdom and the international community. Indeed, a majority say that they are better off now than under the Taliban.

Peter Lilley: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his response. Can he reassure me that there is no longer any basis for the concerns expressed by some in the military and other observers that there was some difficulty in achieving seamless working together between his Department and the military in bringing a better life to the people of Afghanistan?

Douglas Alexander: I hope that I can offer exactly the assurance that the right hon. Gentleman seeks. I will be seeing General Sir David Richards later this afternoon, which is but one example of the close working relationships that have been established. A staff member from my Department is currently heading the provincial reconstruction team in Helmand. Only yesterday I received word that we have two civilians working in each of the forward operating bases. We also have a significant number of civilians operating in Helmand. That was not the case several years ago. We have scaled up the operation and the joint working in Helmand over recent years, and I am confident that a genuinely comprehensive approach is being taken by all arms of the British Government.

Gavin Strang: The House will, of course, welcome my right hon. Friend's assurance that his Department is working with the military. It is right to focus on the military intervention, not least because of the announcements by the President of the United States and the British Prime Minister this week. I think my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would accept that it is our military personnel who are at the sharp end. These are the people who ultimately have to help us win the argument on the farms and in the villages and towns hundreds of miles from Kabul. Will he assure us that he and his entire Department will be working to achieve this, because at the end of the day we have to win hearts and minds if we are going to make the progress that we all want.

Douglas Alexander: Again, I hope I can give my right hon. Friend the assurance he seeks. It is right to recognise that we need a greater military effort from the international coalition in support of the Afghan Government, which is why we welcome the statement made overnight at West Point by President Obama, but we all recognise-not least our own military commanders-that ultimately there is no military-only solution to the challenges faced in Afghanistan, which is why it is necessary to complement the military surge with a political surge. That is the thinking underlying the Prime Minister's announcement at the weekend that there will be an international conference hosted here in London on 28 January, which I believe will provide a further opportunity to set out our genuinely comprehensive approach, incorporating not simply the military aspects of the campaign but its civilian aspects.

Michael Moore: It is understandable that in the Prime Minister's statement to the House on Monday and President Obama's speech last night, the primary focus was on getting the right military strategy and resources in place in Afghanistan, but does the Secretary of State accept that since 2001 only 5 per cent. of international aid has been spent on agriculture, so we have an urgent need to fix not just the military strategy, but also the development strategy?

Douglas Alexander: I recognise that more needs to be done to co-ordinate the international effort. That has been a consistent message from the United Kingdom for some time now. I welcome the conversations that I have had in recent months with Richard Holbrooke, who is seized of exactly the issue that the hon. Gentleman raises in respect of the centrality and importance of agriculture both to the economic viability of Afghanistan and to counter-insurgency efforts. It is also right to set out for the House that we recognise that we confront twin challenges-the need both to weaken the Taliban, which is why we welcome the announcement from the United States, and to strengthen the Afghan state. Of course that begins with security, but it does not end with security. The provision of genuine economic opportunity by the Afghans for the Afghans is going to be a critical element in this campaign.

Lindsay Roy: The investment of the Department for International Development in education in Afghanistan is to be highly commended. What have been the most successful investment outcomes so far from that huge contribution?

Douglas Alexander: Perhaps the most simple and straightforward metric is the number of children enrolled in school. In 2001, 900,000 boys were enrolled in school and the Taliban had made it illegal for young girls to enjoy primary education. We are now comfortably beyond 5 million children enrolled in Afghan schools, and more than 2 million of them are young girls. That alone is testimony to the work we are taking forward through the Afghan reconstruction trust fund, which is paying teachers' salaries. The Taliban recognise that that poses a direct threat to their prospective future for Afghanistan, which is why they continue to behead teachers and to bomb and burn schools, but we are determined to support the Afghan people in the educational endeavours that I have described.

Mark Lancaster: In light of the Prime Minister's statement on Monday that there should be even greater co-operation between the military and DFID in Afghanistan, what changes to the Department's strategy in Helmand does the Secretary of State hope to see once the latest revision of the Helmand road map is completed?

Douglas Alexander: I have just explained to the House that I am meeting General Sir David Richards this afternoon, and the co-ordination that we are taking forward in Helmand will be one of the areas that we will discuss. We have to recognise that the effort in Helmand is not military alone; as the general recognises, a civilian component is also required. That civilian component involves supporting Governor Mangal and the provincial council in the efforts being made, for example, to transfer production from opium to wheat. It also involves ensuring that we support the primary health care being moved in. A great deal of work is being taken forward not just in Lashkar Gah, but also in the forward operating bases, and I will continue to keep these matters under review.

Mark Lancaster: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his answer, but he did not really make clear what changes he expects to take place. A report published recently by the London School of Economics' centre for civil society draws attention to claims by non-governmental organisations that foreign military strategies for tackling insurgency with aid projects had "infringed upon the work" of NGOs and
	"compromised their claims of independence and neutrality."
	Given the Prime Minister's commitment to pressing for greater civilian-military co-operation in Afghanistan, does the Minister feel that such criticisms are justified?

Douglas Alexander: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not recognise the centrality of security to the challenge of development in Helmand, not least given his experience of Afghanistan. Of course we must begin with the recognition that an insurgency is under way, the fulcrum of which is in Helmand at the moment. That is why it is vital for us to strengthen the security of not just the efforts of the international forces, but the Afghan Government themselves. Only when that space is secured will it be possible for the effective work that we want to take place to be fully maximised. I do not see this as being a trade-off between providing security and undertaking development: I think it vital for security to be secured so that development can take place.

Afghanistan Development Strategy

John Robertson: What arrangements are in place to ensure that aid provided by his Department for Afghanistan is utilised in support of the priorities of the Afghanistan national development strategy.

Michael Foster: The four-year DFID Afghanistan country plan that we announced in April this year was subject to full consultation with the Government of Afghanistan. DFID is committed to spending at least 50 per cent. of its funds through Afghan Government systems. That ensures that our money is spent in a way that is in line with the priorities set out in the Afghan national development strategy.

John Robertson: Given the level of corruption that has been exposed in Afghanistan, how can we be sure that the United Kingdom taxpayers' money is being spent properly?

Michael Foster: Corruption is indeed a serious problem, but money from my Department is channelled through the Afghan Government and is protected against misuse. Most of the resources that we give the Government are provided on a reimbursement basis, which means that funds are transferred to them only when it has been demonstrated that actual expenditure has taken place-that teachers' salaries have been paid, for instance-that the expenditure conforms to strict eligibility criteria, and that all the transactions are subject to full international audit.

Malcolm Bruce: Can the Minister explain how the new United Kingdom aid logo will be deployed in Afghanistan, not least to ensure that the people of Afghanistan understand the development commitment of the British Government and the British taxpayer to the whole country, not just the areas in which we are engaging in military operations?

Michael Foster: We are currently looking into how the UK aid logo will be distributed in countries across the world. However, there is real interest in using the logo in Afghanistan to demonstrate our commitment to and support for the people of the country, so that they see us as allies and not as conquerors.

Somaliland (Elections)

Alun Michael: What support his Department is giving to the authorities in Somaliland to assist in arrangements for elections.

Gareth Thomas: The United Kingdom, together with Sweden and Switzerland, is funding independent electoral experts to enable them to support the Somaliland national electoral commission. We will continue to urge the authorities in Somaliland to hold elections as soon as possible, once arrangements for them can be completed.

Alun Michael: I am sure my hon. Friend shares my satisfaction that progress is now being made towards holding effective presidential elections. Does he agree that whoever wins, it will be important to work further in developing parliamentary and democratic institutions in Somaliland, and will he and his Department help that progress following the presidential elections?

Gareth Thomas: I agree that whoever wins will need to continue to work with the international community and the people of Somaliland to improve governance there. We will certainly play our part if successful elections take place. We could provide further support to help to develop the economy of Somaliland, to improve access to basic services, and to address the root causes of the instability of which my right hon. Friend will be only too aware.  [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. There are still far too many private conversations taking place on both sides of the Chamber. It is very unfair to the hon. Member who is asking a question, and to the Minister who is answering it. The House needs to come to order.

Gary Streeter: Is not one of the greatest investments that this country can make in many developing countries, including Somaliland, the establishment of good governance and stable democracy? Will the Minister ensure that the Westminster Foundation for Democracy is funded adequately, given that it does precisely that?

Gareth Thomas: I agree that one way in which the international community can help to encourage development in developing countries is by promoting good governance. That is one reason why the Department's third White Paper focused on this issue, and why the most recent White Paper continued to highlight our work on good governance. I have had a series of discussions about the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, as have other Ministers. If the hon. Gentleman has particular concerns about how it is being financed, I will be very happy to meet him to discuss them.

Climate Change (Africa)

Bob Spink: What steps his Department is taking to assist African countries to mitigate the effects of climate change on them.

Gareth Thomas: We provide assistance through our country programmes, as well as through multilateral partners, to help African countries deal with the increased threats from water shortages, natural disasters, reduced agricultural production and changing patterns of disease.

Bob Spink: Africa did not cause the climate change problem and is not exacerbating it now, but it will suffer more than most continents from its consequences. Will the Minister have discussions with his colleagues to ensure that Africa's problems, and its need to mitigate and adapt, are taken fully into account at Copenhagen, and that Africa is given the help it needs and deserves?

Gareth Thomas: I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing with the hon. Gentleman. Africa certainly was not responsible for causing climate change. He is absolutely right to highlight the importance of the Copenhagen talks and the need for the international community to provide additional finance to the end that he mentions. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be attending the talks to help highlight, with other development Ministers, the need for the international community to do exactly what the hon. Gentleman has suggested: to provide more support to countries across the world who are in need of such additional finance.

Andy Reed: My hon. Friend is right to highlight the need for international co-operation, particularly in respect of mitigation funds. As he knows, east Africa and other places are already suffering from the lack of rains for the past three or four years. What steps can he and his colleagues in the Government take to ensure that our international partners fund to the right level the commitments they have already made? I ask that because we know that in previous deals the money has not been on the table despite the promises. Can the Minister assure us that that funding will now be in place, and that it will be ensured that countries are tied in to giving the money that they have already promised?

Gareth Thomas: As my hon. Friend is aware, that is an essential part of the deal that we want to achieve at Copenhagen and beyond. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has pressed the international community to agree a package of support to 2020, rising to $100 billion of both private and public finance to help developing countries adapt to, and mitigate, the impacts of climate change. The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State, who is now going to the climate change talks, will continue to press our position on this issue.

West Bank (Economy)

Rosie Cooper: What projects his Department is funding to assist the Palestinian economy in the west bank; and if he will make a statement.

Douglas Alexander: We are providing £3 million over three years to the facility for new market development, which helps Palestinian businesses develop new products and compete in new markets. To date, the facility has supported more than 180 businesses. We are also working closely with the Palestinian Investment Promotion Agency and UK Trade & Investment to promote investment in the occupied Palestinian territories.

Rosie Cooper: In light of the welcome decision to open the Jalama crossing to vehicles, what steps is Israel taking to reduce restrictions and encourage economic growth in the west bank? I would be grateful if the Secretary of State could also say what measures are being taken to support the delivery of basic public services to the people.

Douglas Alexander: We welcome the recent moves by the Israeli Government to reduce movement and access restrictions across the west bank. We believe these steps are essential if there is to be the economic progress that is required to address the 34 per cent. fall in per capita GDP over the last nine years. We are also continuing to support the Palestinian Authority, both in their provision of basic services and as a credible negotiating partner to the state of Israel.

Patrick Cormack: Bearing in mind both this and the earlier exchanges, will the Secretary of State take an early opportunity to inform the Israeli ambassador that nothing could better enhance the reputation of his country than Israel beginning to behave as a good neighbour?

Douglas Alexander: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we have regular contact with not only the Israeli ambassador, but all levels of the Israeli Government. As recently as yesterday, I took the opportunity to discuss not only the situation in Gaza, but, more generally, the situation in the middle east with Ehud Barak, the Israeli Defence Minister. That reflects the continuing dialogue that takes place on these important issues.

Global Warming (Bangladesh)

Julie Morgan: What discussions he has had with the Government of Bangladesh on aid to tackle the environmental effects on that country of global warming.

Gareth Thomas: The UK works closely with the Government of Bangladesh on climate change issues. We are, for example, playing a role in advising and assisting the Bangladesh delegation in its preparations for the Copenhagen meeting next month.

Julie Morgan: I thank the Minister for that reply. Earlier in the year, I visited Bangladesh with the Nationwide Association for Integrated Development-NAID-which is a small charity working between Wales and Bangladesh. I saw at first hand the effects of the flooding, the droughts and the cyclones; the poorest people in the country were being affected. What more can he do to help the people of Bangladesh, especially given that one fifth of the country could disappear if the sea level rises by 1 metre?

Gareth Thomas: My hon. Friend is right to highlight the particular challenges relating to climate change in Bangladesh; more than 30 million people in that country could be affected by rises in sea level. That is one reason why my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for International Development are continuing to press for further climate finance to be made available to help developing countries such as Bangladesh.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked-

Engagements

Doug Naysmith: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 2 December.

Gordon Brown: I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in paying tribute to Acting Sergeant John Amer, from 1st Battalion Coldstream Guards. We owe him a huge debt of gratitude, and our thoughts are with his family and friends. As we plan a way forward in Afghanistan, this loss in Afghanistan reminds us of the risks and dangers our forces have to endure in Afghanistan, today and every day, and of the importance of securing peace and stability. After talks with President Obama, I can also report that the London conference on Afghanistan will make decisions on civil co-ordination in Afghanistan, and will hear commitments by coalition partners on extra troops and from President Karzai on Afghan reform.
	This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings today.

Doug Naysmith: In associating myself with the Prime Minister's condolences to the family and friends of Acting Sergeant John Amer, I know that I am speaking for every Member of the House.
	Following recent events in the Colchester and Basildon hospital trusts, does my right hon. Friend agree with me, with the Secretary of State for Health and with a recent report of the Select Committee on Health that the major priority of the national health service must be patient safety?

Gordon Brown: Patient safety is and has to be our No. 1 priority, and there is no excuse for anything other than the best care and no tolerance for the failure of management. I am sorry when any patient receives less than the best care and help in the NHS. As a result of our studies of the NHS, we have introduced independent regulation, we have introduced transparency so that information flows to the patients and we have set up the Care Quality Commission, which from next year will register all hospitals and set clear safety standards that they will have to meet continuously. I can say today that our objective is that that process will start not from April, but from January, and that we will do everything in our power to have hospitals deal with hospital-acquired diseases and make sure that people have the best care at all times. There has been a 7 per cent. fall in mortality overall in our hospitals and a 50 per cent. fall in MRSA. We will continue to do everything in our power to make our hospitals clean, safe and secure for all patients.

David Cameron: May I join the Prime Minister and everyone in this House in paying tribute to Acting Sergeant John Amer, who died this week in Afghanistan? He gave his life to protect our country. We should honour his memory. We should care for his family.
	Before I go on to other subjects, may I ask a couple of questions about Afghanistan? Following President Obama's very welcome speech last night, the British people will want to know what the US surge means for British forces. I think we all accept that one of the problems has been that British troops have been spread too thinly over too much ground. Will the US reinforcement mean that we will be able to have more of our forces concentrated in fewer places, so that they can protect the population more effectively and turn the tide against the Taliban?

Gordon Brown: First, I think that the whole House will welcome the announcement by President Obama both of the objectives of the mission in relation to the Taliban and to al-Qaeda, and of the numbers of troops, a substantial part of whom will go into Helmand province and will be of assistance in dealing with the Taliban insurgency there. I said on Monday that our troops would go in immediately so that they were more densely concentrated in the areas where there has been the greatest problem. I said that from January some of our troops would be involved in the vital task of partnering and mentoring the Afghan forces. I believe that at the moment there is something in the order of 200,000 Afghan, British, American and coalition troops in Afghanistan. By the end of next year and the beginning of 2011, the number will be in excess of 300,000. That will make it possible for us to transfer the control of some districts and provinces to Afghan security control starting in 2010.

David Cameron: The Prime Minister specifically spoke about this transfer of provinces in 2010 and I want to ask him about this. At the weekend, he said that he was considering transferring
	"at least five Afghan provinces to lead Afghan control by the end of 2010",
	including parts of Helmand. This was widely interpreted as a commitment to start the withdrawal of British troops in 2010.

Gordon Brown: indicated dissent.

David Cameron: The Prime Minister shakes his head, but that is how it was reported on every single media outlet. This will be a good opportunity for the Prime Minister to clarify the issue. President Obama said that the process of transferring forces out of Afghanistan would not even begin until the middle of 2011. It is important that we do not give false expectations to British troops or mixed messages to anybody else. Will the Prime Minister clarify whether he would expect British troop numbers to start reducing in 2010 or 2011?

Gordon Brown: I made it absolutely clear at the press conference-if the right hon. Gentleman had read the full transcript of it, he would know-that there was no question of our withdrawing our British troops until the point at which we were sure that the Afghans could take over security control themselves. Even if one or two parts of a district or province are transferred in 2010, we will continue to have our troops in Afghanistan at that point. My point earlier was that by 2011 there will be more than 300,000 Afghan, American, British and coalition troops. That is the point at which the balance between Afghan forces and British, American and coalition troops will start to change. We should recognise that it is absolutely crucial for our Afghanisation strategy that the Afghans start to take control of security as soon as possible. It is also absolutely crucial that we are assured that the Afghan troops are properly trained and therefore partnered with British forces. That will happen during the course of 2010. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we will stay and do the job that is necessary. I believe that when people in Britain see the facts of the Taliban threat and the problems with al-Qaeda, they will support what we, the Government, have done with 43 coalition partners.

David Cameron: That does sound more like the 2011 date that President Obama was talking about. The clarification is welcome.
	Let me turn to the economy. Will the Prime Minister confirm that figures last week show this Britain is the last country not just in the G7 but in the entire G20 to move out of recession?

Gordon Brown: No, they do not confirm that. Spain is a member of the G20 now and it is in recession. Six European countries that are part of the European Union or part of the continent are in recession. I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman that the purpose of asking this question must be that he either has policy that he wishes to put forward so that we can do better, or he is simply talking down Britain.

David Cameron: The fact is that it is the right hon. Gentleman's policies that have given us the longest and deepest recession in our history. Only this Prime Minister thinks that we should all be pathetically grateful for this long and deep recession, and that he has somehow led the world when he has left Britain behind. He is normally fond of reading out lists of countries. Australia, Canada, Turkey and Brazil all went into recession after Britain, but they came out before Britain. France and Germany went into recession at the same time as Britain, yet they came out before us. Will the Prime Minister answer this question? Given that all those countries are now in growth and that we are not in growth, can he tell us what on earth he meant when he said that we were
	"leading the rest of the world...out of recession"-[ Official Report, 3 June 2009; Vol. 493, c. 268.]?

Gordon Brown: Not one policy from the Leader of the Opposition! We have taken action to restructure the banks and nationalise Northern Rock-opposed by the Opposition. We have taken action for a fiscal stimulus-opposed by the Opposition. We have taken action to keep unemployment down as a result of creating jobs-opposed by the Opposition. We have taken action for international co-operation-opposed by the Opposition. They have been wrong on the recession and they will be wrong on the recovery. The voice may be that of a modern public relations man, but the mindset is that of the 1930s.

David Cameron: That one must have sounded great in the bunker. The fact is that the one policy that this country needs above all is a credible programme for getting the biggest budget deficit in the G20 under control. That is the view of the Governor of the Bank of England and he says they have not got a credible plan to get the deficit under control.  [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Government Back Benchers need to simmer down a little.

David Cameron: It is not just Back Benchers, Mr. Speaker-the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families is up to his old tricks again. You would have thought that he would want to spend more time in his ultra-marginal constituency, but perhaps he agrees with us that the more he meets people, the more likely we are to win it.
	Let us look at the Prime Minister's three central claims: the claim that we were better prepared than other countries-that was wrong; our deficit was worse than other countries-the claim that Britain was leading the world out of recession, but we are still in recession; and the claim that he had abolished boom and bust, which is absolute rubbish. Is it not the case that his three biggest claims are his three biggest failures?

Gordon Brown: The more he talks, the less he actually says. Nothing about policy. We have helped 200,000 businesses in this country, we have helped half a million people stay out of unemployment and we are helping people who have problems with mortgage arrears. If he wanted to reduce the deficit, why does he persist with his inheritance tax policy that would cost £1 billion? Why does he have a domestic tax policy which is to help his friends with inheritance tax cuts and a global tax policy to help non-domiciled candidates avoid any tax whatsoever?

David Cameron: As the Prime Minister has raised the issue of inheritance tax, perhaps he could answer- [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Bradshaw, you are a very senior Member. I say to the right hon. Gentleman and to all Members that the more noise there is, the fewer the opportunities for Back Benchers to take part.

David Cameron: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That is another one who should be defending his marginal constituency.
	Let the Prime Minister answer this very simple question. The only person who has made a specific pledge-not just a pledge or a promise, but in legislation-to reduce inheritance tax in the coming Budget is the Prime Minister; he legislated to raise the threshold from £325,000 to £350,000. Perhaps he can tell us now: is he still planning to do that? We would like an answer.

Gordon Brown: It is interesting that this exchange started with the great ideas of economic policy and the right hon. Gentleman has ended up having to defend his own policy on inheritance tax. The question he has to answer and the issue that concerns the whole country is that inheritance tax cuts for millionaires will cost us nearly £2 billion that we should be spending on public services. The issue for the country is this: is it public services for the many or inheritance tax cuts for the few? I have to say, that with him and Mr. Goldsmith, their inheritance tax policy seems to have been dreamed up on the playing fields of Eton.

Hon. Members: More!

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am very glad that Members are enjoying themselves. They all seem to have had a very hearty breakfast.

Lynda Waltho: Follow that! Will my right hon. Friend congratulate Avon Global Ambassador Reese Witherspoon and the domestic charity Refuge who, along with me, today launched their "Four Ways to Speak Out Against Domestic Violence" campaign? Will he reassure me that the Government will continue to concentrate policy and resources on attacking this most evil and cowardly of crimes?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. She has led the way in urging us as a Government and our country to take seriously the issue of domestic violence. Last week, the Government launched our strategy to tackle all forms of violence against women. I believe that we have made real progress, but a great deal has to be done. There has been a 64 per cent. reduction in domestic violence, and we are bringing more criminal cases to court but we need to do more. I am very grateful that Reese Witherspoon is leading this campaign. She spoke movingly at the funeral of Anthony Minghella, and I welcome her to the House today.

Nicholas Clegg: I would obviously like to add my own expressions of sympathy and condolence to the family and friends of Acting Sergeant John Amer of 1st Battalion Coldstream Guards, who tragically lost his life serving in Afghanistan on Monday.
	President Obama's speech last night on his new strategy in Afghanistan is immensely important. He has set a very tight timetable indeed for this new military strategy and surge to have an effect. Given that tight timetable, does the Prime Minister agree that it is all the more important not to over-rely on President Karzai? President Obama said last night that the best way forward is to get tough on Karzai but, given Karzai's previous record and that two of his vice-presidents are ex-warlords, does the Prime Minister not think that it would be better to have a strategy of working around President Karzai and relying on local and regional political leadership instead?

Gordon Brown: President Obama will be grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's endorsement. He is absolutely right that we have both to weaken the Taliban and strengthen the Afghan state. The actions that we are taking with troops to deal with the insurgency are important but, as he rightly recognises, so too is building up the strength of the Afghan army and police, and its local government and national Government. As President Obama said last night, there is no blank cheque for President Karzai, who has to take the action that is necessary. That is why I said earlier today that the London conference on 28 January, which President Karzai will attend, will be a chance for him to set out the further reforms that he has to make to make the army and police more efficient, to make sure that the Government are free of corruption and to build up stronger local and provincial government.

Nicholas Clegg: Will the Prime Minister confirm whether the powers around Afghanistan-Russia, China and, yes, even Iran-might be involved in the London conference to which he just referred? Without regional backing, it will be very difficult to create stability within Afghanistan. President Obama was silent on this crucial regional dimension in his speech last night. Will the Prime Minister tell us whether that is being taken forward, and perhaps give us a feel for what steps are being taken to involve those other countries in the region?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman because, as he recognises, the military surge must be matched by a political and a diplomatic surge. It will be no use for the future of Afghanistan if there is no security around Afghanistan with its neighbours. That is why they have a very important role to play in the future-in guaranteeing non-interference in Afghans' affairs, in building up the links that are necessary for Afghan trade, industry and commerce to flourish, and also in stopping the flow of weapons into Afghanistan. So yes, it is right for us to invite regional powers to the London conference.

Celia Barlow: Will the Prime Minister join me in marking 60 years since the British surgeon Sir Harold Ridley commissioned my Hove company, Rayner Opticians, to produce the first intraocular lens? Will he also congratulate the company on receiving the Queen's Award for Enterprise on Friday, and on the fact that it still works with charities across the world in restoring sight?

Gordon Brown: In my hon. Friend's constituency, there are many excellent companies, and one of them is Rayner. I want to congratulate all those who have contributed to the success of ophthalmic medicine over the past few years. The inventions that have come from Britain are truly wonderful. We should be very proud of our British scientists and engineers, but also very proud of our medical researchers and medical firms.

Ben Wallace: Recently revealed figures show that, since 2001, 140 inmates have been allowed to die of cancer while serving their sentences in UK jails. In the light of the Business Secretary's recent country sports activity, is there, under this Government, one rule for British inmates and another one for Libyan mass murderers?

Gordon Brown: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the decision on Libya was made by the Scottish Administration. It was their decision to make; it was not our decision to make.

Roger Berry: My constituents are extremely concerned about the impact of global warming and want speedy action to deal with it, unlike some senior Opposition Members and their European allies. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he has been doing everything possible, so that both developed and developing countries can look to a deal at Copenhagen?

Gordon Brown: We are in the happy position of being able to work with the rest of Europe to get a climate change agreement and to work as Europe with the rest of the world to make sure that we can move forward. The talks that are taking place now, including at the Commonwealth conference, are a desire to bring together the richest countries, which will have to contribute to a climate change deal financially as well as with bold and ambitious targets, and the developing countries, which we want to make progress, but which we will have to be able to help. I am pleased that we have agreed-I believe that America and Europe will also agree with the Commonwealth-on a £10 billion start-up fund to help the poorest countries immediately to move on mitigation and adaptation. We have to make sure that the intermediate targets that the major countries will propose are sufficiently ambitious for us not only to meet our target, in 2050, of a 50 per cent. reduction, but to be making big progress through to 2020. Britain will play its part. I know that the European Union will play its part. We look forward to successful negotiations in Copenhagen, and I hope that, despite doubts expressed from some parts of the Opposition, there will be all-party support for that deal.

Anne McIntosh: In July 2007, the Prime Minister promised that no local authority would be out of pocket in recovering from the summer floods. Collectively, they had a shortfall of £50 million. What promise will he give to the people of Cumbria that they will similarly not face a shortfall in the recovery from the floods this year?

Gordon Brown: I understand from the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who is with me on the Front Bench, that 100 per cent. of the clean-up costs were actually made available, but I also understand that the Environment Agency and the local district council have developed proposals for a flood defence scheme in Thirsk and are working up proposals to secure funding for that scheme.
	I have to say that investment in flood management is higher than ever. We saw the benefits of it in Carlisle and in surrounding areas, as a result of flood defence investment, and the grants that we are making to the Environment Agency to tackle flooding have increased from £500 million in 2007 to £659 million in 2010-11. I assure the hon. Lady that her constituency case is being dealt with, but I think that she should see the wider investment that we are making in flood defences.

Chris Ruane: Does the Prime Minister agree that the policy of growing and not cutting our way out of recession is beginning to show results?  [ Interruption . ] Hold on; I have not finished yet. If we adopted the policy of immediate and savage cuts, advocated by the dynamic duo over there, the economy would be in a right old Eton mess.

Gordon Brown: The shadow, shadow Chancellor has always recognised that we need to do more to get ourselves out of recession, and I believe that the action that we are taking to help small businesses, to help those people who are unemployed back into work, to advance capital investment so that we have big construction projects going ahead, and of course to help home owners is the action that every other country in the world, including every other country in Europe, supports. It is only unfortunate that the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor are even set against the shadow, shadow Chancellor in trying to deal with this problem.

Malcolm Bruce: When the Prime Minister goes to Copenhagen next week, will he not recognise that securing a commitment to the £100 billion fund that he is looking for in 2020 will be essential to securing a deal from the developing countries? But at the same time, will he reflect that, given the floods that we have in this country-in Cumbria, in Huntly in my constituency and elsewhere-we need a partnership between the Government and the insurance industry to ensure that we have the means to cope with climate change? Local authorities in the present climate will not be able to do it alone.

Gordon Brown: The right hon. Gentleman is Chairman of the International Development Committee and I am grateful for what he says about the climate change conference and the need to help the poorest countries. Our policy is to deal with climate change at home and abroad. There should be no doubt about the scientific evidence before us that shows the need to act on climate change. I thought we had moved beyond that argument to looking at what we need to do. At home we will continue to invest in a low-carbon economy, and I believe that in the pre-Budget report next week, the right hon. Gentleman will see action to move forward that investment so that we are a low-carbon economy of the future, one that can lead the world. Abroad, it is important that we make sure that there is sufficient finance for developing countries to enable them to come to a deal in Copenhagen in a few days' time. We already have agreement on start-up finance. We now need to get an agreement on how we can move forward that finance over a period of years.

Tom Harris: Does the Prime Minister believe that every candidate who stands for election to the House should pay taxes in this country?

Gordon Brown: Yes.

Gregory Barker: For the first time in 50 years, the key economic portfolio in the European Commission has gone to France. President Sarkozy proudly told Reuters:
	"The English are the big losers in this business."
	Why did the Prime Minister fail to win it for Britain?

Gordon Brown: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the policy that is being adopted by the European Union-it is discussing today the policy on financial services-and at the policy that is being adopted on the economy generally, it is British proposals, British influence and British policies that are making a difference. That is the advantage of being at the heart of Europe. If we took the advice of the hon. Gentleman and his party, we would be on the fringe of Europe, isolated, dealing with minority parties and unable to change the course of the debate. That is not the position that we are in.

Dai Havard: My right hon. Friend will know that there is a need to change legislation for the civil service compensation scheme. He will also know that this is being used by the permanent secretaries' dining club as an opportunity to propose slashes to the entitlement of lower paid civil servants in the event of redundancy. Will he please give an assurance that no device such as a statutory instrument, which I believe it is proposed to table on the last day before the Christmas recess, will be introduced in the House to operate such a scheme from 1 January? Will he ensure that no legislation is introduced until a new agreement is established with the unions concerned?

Gordon Brown: My hon. Friend will find that there is extra protection for the lowest paid civil servants, as well as ensuring that all the savings that the Government have committed to will be achieved, but I cannot defend a system where there is six times the ordinary salary for civil servants at the very top who take voluntary retirement. That system must change, and it will change.

Elfyn Llwyd: Given the £100 million raid on Welsh lottery funds and the non-Barnettising of the cost of the Olympics, what can the people of Wales realistically expect for the £427 million that they are paying for the London Olympics?

Gordon Brown: Let me first congratulate the new leader of the Welsh Labour party and the prospective First Minister of Wales, Carwyn Jones. I believe that he will be an excellent leader.
	Over the past 12 years, expenditure on Wales has grown markedly as a result of the decisions of a Labour Government. The hon. Gentleman should be grateful that there is additional expenditure on health, education, sports and culture in Wales. We will continue to honour our commitments to the people of Wales.

Shona McIsaac: The Bounce Back campaign launched by the  Grimsby Telegraph aims to unite businesses and organisations so that our area is on the right road to recovery following the recession. Will my right hon. Friend endorse that initiative and say a few sharp words to Opposition Members who continue to talk down our country?

Gordon Brown: It is important to recognise all the local efforts that are being made, including in Cleethorpes, by the business campaign to fight for a recovery for our country. They are fighting to get local business, to invest in future businesses and to help young people get jobs and take on more apprenticeships. This is what people in Britain want to do to help us get through the recession and get to recovery, but it is possible only by having a policy to invest additional money to take us through a most difficult time when markets fail and banks falter. That is the policy that we have pursued, and it is pursued by every other country. It is, I repeat, unfortunate that it is not supported by the Opposition.

Tim Yeo: As next week's pre-Budget report coincides with the start of the climate change talks in Copenhagen, has the Prime Minister instructed the Chancellor to reverse the fall in green taxes that took place in the 10 years when the Prime Minister himself was Chancellor? Does he now accept that a tax is only a green tax if its primary purpose is to change behaviour and not to raise revenue?

Gordon Brown: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is proposing VAT on fuel, is he? I do not think that the Conservative party wants to raise VAT on fuel. What we have done is introduce a climate change levy, and we have introduced air passenger tax at a higher rate. We have taken measures that are necessary to deal with the problems of the environment and to reduce carbon emissions, and we are taking measures that are in line with what is happening in other countries. But if he wants us to put VAT on fuel, I will oppose him.

Julie Morgan: I was pleased to read over the weekend that the Government are considering moving many of the 130,000 civil service jobs in London and the south-east out to areas where the need is greater. Will my right hon. Friend consider my constituency of Cardiff, North as a destination for more civil service jobs, bearing in mind that the Revenue and Customs building in Llanishen has six empty floors?

Gordon Brown: Cardiff, North is an excellent location for new work and new jobs. As of December 2008, over 3,000 posts have been reallocated from London and the south-east to Wales, and nearly 300 have gone to Cardiff. We want to help areas by creating jobs, not causing unemployment.

Peter Tapsell: The Prime Minister has just told us how he hopes that in a couple of years' time we will have 300,000 troops fighting the Taliban. As that happens to be exactly the number that I told the Government they would need when they first recklessly went in with hopelessly inadequate numbers of troops, who were grossly under-equipped, should he not now resign?

Gordon Brown: President Obama will be grateful for the hon. Gentleman's endorsement of our strategy. The figure of 300,000 means that about 150,000 Afghan troops are trained and ready to take over responsibility, and that is the task over the next year-to train up more Afghan forces. I am very grateful that President Obama has made that the centre of his proposals. That is what our British forces will do, with all the coalition partners. Can I thank the hon. Gentleman again for his advice? He has not always been right: he advised me not to make the Bank of England independent.

Lindsay Roy: Does my right hon. Friend believe that the Post Office should expand its role in banking, particularly in children's banking, and introduce a wider range of financial services to help sustain the post office network?

Gordon Brown: The services proposed are a Post Office current account, a children's saving account, new services for small business, including a Post Office business account, and a weekly budgeting account for those on low incomes to take advantage of direct debits and reduce bills. Once again, we are taking an institution that is well established in the country and giving it a new purpose serving the whole community. This is what a Labour Government do.

Points of Order

Daniel Kawczynski: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, in a Westminster Hall debate about proportional representation, the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, the right hon. Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills), gave us a guarantee that the Government would not go ahead with plans for a change to the voting system until after the election-so that they would be re-elected to office. In  The Times newspaper today, they state that the Prime Minister is determined to table an amendment to the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill in this Session to bring forward a referendum on the issue. Will you, Mr. Speaker, use your good offices to ensure that the Minister explains properly to us their intentions in that matter?

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but I think that he is really just continuing the debate and, dare I say, inviting me to join it. Newspaper articles in  The Times and elsewhere are doubtless always of interest, but they do not necessarily constitute the basis for a point of order.

Greg Mulholland: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your advice. On several occasions, I have requested a statement in the House on Eccleshill independent sector treatment centre. Yesterday, a secret report on the centre was published that revealed evidence of inadequate safety procedures, consultants refusing to perform operations, incorrect registration, and invalid insurance. People have lost confidence in that facility. Through your good offices, Mr. Speaker, may I ask you how I can raise this in the House? When will the Secretary of State come before the House and finally give a statement to reassure people that it is a safe facility to which they and their relatives can go for procedures?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is a very assiduous Member who loses no opportunity to highlight in the House his concerns on behalf of his constituents. Unfortunately, what he has said does not of itself constitute a point of order. However, I would say to him, first, that he has put his views very clearly on the record, and secondly, that as I heard him warming to his theme, it struck me that he might have very good material for an Adjournment debate.

Evan Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This afternoon, we are going to debate several groups of amendments and new clauses tabled to the Equality Bill. They are massive groups, and it looks as though we will not get through them in one day. May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, if there is anything that could be done by Members of this House, even at this late stage, if we were minded to seek more time to ensure that we are able properly to scrutinise the Bill?

Mr. Speaker: It is often an established principle that it is a good idea to ask a question only when one knows the answer, and I fear that the hon. Gentleman, who is a very experienced parliamentarian, knows that the answer to his question is no. There is nothing that I can do at this stage because, as he will be aware, I am bound by the terms of the programme motion, notwithstanding my own enthusiasm for maximum debate. I fear that I cannot help him on this occasion. Again, however, the hon. Gentleman, on behalf of the people of Oxford, West and Abingdon, has put his views fairly and squarely on the record.

Equality Bill

[ Relevant Document: The Twenty-sixth Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Session 2008-09, Legislative S crutiny: Equality Bill, HC 1113.]
	 Consideration of Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee

New Clause 40
	 — 
	Enquiries about disability and health

'(1) This section applies where-
	(a) a person (A) does not proceed with an application by another person (B) for work, after asking about B's health but before making a relevant decision, and
	(b) B brings proceedings before an employment tribunal on a complaint that A's conduct in relation to B's application is a contravention of a relevant disability provision.
	(2) In the application of section 132 to the proceedings, the circumstances described in subsection (1)(a) are to be treated for the purposes of subsection (2) of that section as facts from which the tribunal could decide that A contravened the provision.
	(3) The reference in subsection (1)(a) to making a relevant decision is-
	(a) if A requires applicants to undergo one or more assessments, a reference to deciding in the light of the first assessment which applications to proceed with, or
	(b) in any other case, a reference to deciding to whom to offer the work (whether by a conditional or unconditional offer).
	(4) An assessment is an interview or other process designed to give an indication of a person's suitability for the work concerned; but a condition to undergo an assessment is not to be regarded as a condition for the purposes of subsection (3)(b).
	(5) This section does not apply to a question that A asks in so far as asking the question is necessary for the purpose of-
	(a) establishing whether a duty to make reasonable adjustments is or will be imposed on A in relation to B in connection with a requirement to undergo an assessment,
	(b) monitoring diversity in the range of persons applying to A for work,
	(c) taking action to which section 154 would apply if references in that section to persons who share (or do not share) a protected characteristic were references to disabled persons (or persons who are not disabled) and the reference to the characteristic were a reference to disability, or
	(d) if A applies in relation to the work a requirement to have a particular disability, establishing whether B has that disability.
	(6) Subsection (5)(d) applies only if A shows that, having regard to the nature or context of the work-
	(a) the requirement is an occupational requirement, and
	(b) the application of the requirement is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
	(7) "Work" means employment, contract work, a position as a partner, a position as a member of an LLP, a pupillage or tenancy, being taken as a devil, membership of a stable, an appointment to a personal or public office, or the provision of an employment service; and the reference in subsection (3)(b) to deciding to whom to offer work is, in relation to contract work, to be read as a reference to deciding who to allow to do the work.
	(8) The following, so far as relating to discrimination within section 13 because of disability, are relevant disability provisions-
	(a) section 37(1)(a) or (c);
	(b) section 39(1)(b);
	(c) section 42(1)(a) or (c);
	(d) section 43(1)(a) or (c);
	(e) section 45(1)(a) or (c);
	(f) section 46(1)(a) or (c);
	(g) section 47(3)(a) or (c);
	(h) section 48(3)(a) or (c);
	(i) section 49(1);
	(j) section 53(1)(a) or (c).
	(9) For the purposes of this section, whether or not a person has a disability is to be regarded as an aspect of that person's health.
	(10) This section does not apply to anything done for the purpose of vetting applicants for work for reasons of national security.
	(11) Asking about the health of an applicant for work is not of itself a contravention of this Act by virtue of section 13 (although action taken in reliance on the information given in response may be).'.- (Vera Baird.)
	 Brought up, and read the First time.

Vera Baird: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: new clause 3- Mandatory pay audits
	'(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed the Secretary of State shall by regulations require designated employers to conduct a pay audit and to publish information relating to the pay of its employees for the purpose of showing whether there are differences in the pay of male and female employees.
	(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) regulations made pursuant to subsection (1) shall require designated employers to publish information including-
	(a) the average hourly pay of male workers and the average hourly pay of female workers within its employment;
	(b) in respect of each role within the organisation-
	(i) the average pay awarded to workers engaged in the role;
	(ii) the percentage of men and women engaged in that role;
	(iii) the gap, if any, between the average hourly pay of male and female employees in that role; and
	(iv) the average length of service of men and women engaged in that role; and
	(c) information identifying-
	(i) any description of activities carried out in the course of employment with the employer by any group of workers who are wholly or mainly women;
	(ii) any descriptions of activities carried out in the course of employment with the employer by any group of workers who are wholly or mainly men;
	(iii) the relative values of the descriptions of activities falling within paragraph (c)(i) and paragraph (c)(ii); and
	(iv) in relation to descriptions of activities within subsection (c)(i) and subsection (c)(ii) which are judged to be of equal value to each other, the average hourly pay of male workers and average hourly pay of female workers carrying on those activities.
	(3) For the purposes of this section, "pay" means the ordinary basic or minimum wage or salary and any other consideration, whether in cash or kind, which the worker receives directly or indirectly, in respect of his employment, from his employer and includes the cost to the employer of-
	(a) any pensions contributions paid by the employer in respect of the worker,
	(b) any bonus or other performance related or incentive payment, and
	(c) any discretionary benefit granted to a worker in connection with his or her employment.
	(4) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) regulations made pursuant to that subsection shall specify the process which an employer must follow in conducting a pay audit, the form in which the information must be published, and the degree and means of publicity to be made.
	(5) In making regulations pursuant to subsection (1) the Secretary of State shall adopt best practice for promoting awareness of the nature and causes of any pay gap between persons of different genders as set out by the International Labour Organisation from time to time.
	(6) The Secretary of State shall consult with the Equality and Human Rights Commission as to how to ensure that the regulations shall reflect best practice prior to the making of the first regulations and no less than every five years thereafter and shall amend the regulations as necessary to ensure that best practice is maintained.
	(7) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) regulations made pursuant to that subsection shall provide that where an employer fails to publish information as required by regulations made pursuant to subsection (1) an employer shall not be entitled to submit a material factor defence in accordance with section 66 in relation to any period for which they are in breach of their obligations under those regulations.
	(8) Where the information published by an employer reveals that there is a difference in the average pay of men and women doing relevant types of work as set out in section 61, then in any proceedings to enforce a sex equality rule or sex equality clause it shall be presumed that there is such a breach unless the employer can show a material factor defence.
	(9) Regulations made pursuant to subsection (1) may make provision for a failure to comply with the regulations-
	(a) to be an offence punishable on summary conviction by a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale;
	(b) to be enforced, otherwise than as an offence, by such means as is prescribed.
	(10) The reference to a failure to comply with the regulations includes a reference to a failure by a person acting on behalf of an employer.
	(11) Regulations made pursuant to subsection (1) shall provide that an employer must conduct a pay audit and publish information relating to the pay of its employees within six months of the coming into force of the regulations.
	(12) Regulations made pursuant to subsection (1) shall provide that where an employer (A) is able to determine the terms and conditions of employment as between another employer (B) and its employees, A shall publish the information that B would otherwise be required to publish in a way which is consolidated with the information for all other employees of A whose terms and conditions A may determine, and where A publishes consolidated information B shall not be in breach of those regulations if it does not publish any information.
	(13) A designated employer means an employer who has more than 100 employees.
	(14) Regulations made pursuant to subsection (1) shall require designated employers publishing information in relation to the average hourly pay of employees to specify how much of the hourly rate constitutes ordinary basic or minimum wage or salary and how much, if any, constitutes other consideration and to specify the types and amounts of any such other consideration.'.
	New clause 4- Representative actions in equal pay claims
	'(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations to permit the Equality and Human Rights Commission or a registered trade union to apply to a court or tribunal as appropriate for a representative action order in relation to a defined class of persons ("the class") who would benefit from the litigation of rights, or common issues in relation to rights that members of the class may have as a result of the provisions of this Act.
	(2) The regulations shall make rules in relation to the making and termination of a representative action order and its conduct.
	(3) Such rules shall provide for hearings to be conducted in private when it is necessary for the issues between the members of the class and the Equality and Human Rights Commission or a registered trade union to be resolved and those issues are subject to legal professional privilege shared by members of the class.
	(4) Such rules shall make provision for the hearing of any issue as defined in subsection (3) to be undertaken and managed by a different judge or tribunal from the judge and tribunal that have the responsibility for determining the rights or common issue in relation to rights, of the member class.'.
	New clause 5- Hypothetical comparisons in equal pay cases
	'(1) To the extent set out in subsections (2) and (3), sections 63 to 66 apply where a person (A) does not have a colleague (B) who does work that falls within section 61, because there is no such person of the opposite sex to A.
	(2) The provisions of section 63 will apply to the extent that a term of A's is less favourable than a corresponding term of B would be, or that A does not have a term which B would have.
	(3) The provisions of section 64 will apply to the extent that a term of A's is less favourable than a corresponding term of B would be, or if a discretion in relation to A is capable of being exercised in a way which is less favourable than it would be in relation to B.'.
	New clause 6- Defence of material factor (No. 2)
	'(1) The sex equality clause in A's terms has no effect in relation to a difference between A's terms and B's terms if the responsible person shows that the difference is because of a material factor-
	(a) which does not constitute discrimination because of sex within the meaning of section 13, and
	(b) if the factor puts or would put A and persons of the same sex as A at a particular disadvantage when compared with persons of the opposite sex, reliance upon that factor is shown by the responsible person to be objectively justified by a legitimate aim and appropriate and necessary to the achievement of that aim.
	(2) A sex equality rule has no effect in relation to a difference between A and B in the effect of a relevant matter if the trustees or managers of the scheme in question show that the difference is because of a material factor which-
	(a) does not constitute discrimination because of sex within the meaning of section 13, and
	(b) if the factor puts or would put A and persons of the same sex as A at a particular disadvantage when compared with persons of the opposite sex, reliance upon that factor is shown by the responsible person to be objectively justified by a legitimate aim and appropriate and necessary to the achievement of that aim.
	(3) "Relevant matter" has the meaning given in section 64.
	(4) For the purposes of this section, a factor is not material unless it is a material difference between A's case and B's.'.
	New clause 11- Pre-interview discrimination protection
	'An employer (A) discriminates against a person (B) in the arrangements A makes for deciding who to offer employment if A fails to take reasonable steps to ensure that-
	(a) the selection for interview is carried out on an anonymous basis, and
	(b) the person selecting for interview does not know the gender, race, sexual orientation, age or marital status of B or whether B has a disability.'.
	New clause 17- Discussions with third parties
	'(1) A term of a person's work that prevents or restricts the person (P) from being involved in discussions with third parties about the terms of P's work is unenforceable against P insofar as P is involved in a relevant pay discussion.
	(2) A relevant pay discussion is a discussion with a third party-
	(a) which is about pay, and
	(b) which relates to whether or to what extent there is, in relation to the work in question, a connection between pay and having (or not having) a particular protected characteristic.
	(3) Being involved in a discussion includes-
	(a) seeking the disclosure by a third party of information;
	(b) disclosing information to a third party;
	(c) receiving information disclosed by a third party;
	(d) seeking advice from a third party.
	(4) Being involved in a relevant pay discussion is to be treated as a protected act for the purposes of the relevant victimisation provision.
	(5) The relevant victimisation provision is, in relation to a description of work specified in the first column of the table, section 25 insofar as it applies for the purposes of a provision mentioned in the second column.
	
		
			  Description of work  Provisions by virtue of which section 26 has effect 
			 Employment Section 37(3) 
			 Appointment to a personal office Section 47(5) or (8) 
			 Appointment to a public office Section 48(5) or (9).'. 
		
	
	New clause 21- Prohibited pre-employment inquiries
	'(1) A person (A) subjects a disabled job applicant (B) to prohibited pre-employment enquiries where A makes inquiries of B as to whether B is a disabled person or as to the nature or severity of such disability.
	(2) Inquiries of a disabled person as to the existence, nature or severity of their disability will not constitute prohibited pre-employment inquiries for the purposes of this Act where-
	(a) the inquiry is for the purpose of determining whether an applicant requires reasonable adjustments for the interview process and is stated as being such an inquiry;
	(b) the inquiry is made at the application stage for the purposes of monitoring disabled applicants, where such inquiry is made in writing, is kept separately from any application form, is anonymised, and is stated as being such an inquiry;
	(c) for the purposes of positive action in recruitment, such as offering the guaranteed interview scheme, and is stated as being such an inquiry.
	(3) Any invitation to request reasonable adjustments or disclose a disability under subsection (2)(a), (b) and (c) must specify the use that will be made of that information and must state that there is no requirement to provide that information.
	(4) Information provided must only be used for the stated purpose.
	(5) Inquiries of a disabled person as to the existence, nature or severity of their disability will not constitute prohibited pre-employment inquiries for the purposes of this Act where the inquiry is necessary for the purposes of determining whether an applicant can perform a specific employment-related function, either with or without adjustments and is stated as being such an inquiry.'.
	New clause 22- Employees and applicants: prohibited pre-employment inquiries
	'An employer (A) must not subject a disabled job applicant (B) to prohibited employment inquiries.'.
	New clause 24- Time off for workplace equality representatives
	'(1) An employer shall permit an employee of his who is-
	(a) a member of an independent trade union recognised by the employer, and
	(b) a workplace equality representative of the trade union,
	to take reasonable time off during his working hours for any of the following purposes.
	(2) The purposes are-
	(a) carrying out any of the following activities-
	(i) promoting equality workplace initiatives and practices;
	(ii) carrying out equality audits and assessments;
	(iii) being consulted on workplace equality policies, practices and management systems;
	(b) consulting the employer about carrying out any such activities;
	(c) preparing for any of the things mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b).
	(3) Subsection (1) only applies if-
	(a) the trade union has given the employer notice in writing that the employee is a workplace equality representative of the trade union, and
	(b) the training condition is met in relation to him.
	(4) The training condition is met if-
	(a) the employee has undergone sufficient training to enable him to carry on the activities mentioned in subsection (2), and the trade union has given the employer notice in writing of that fact,
	(b) the trade union has in the last six months given the employer notice in writing that the employee will be undergoing such training, or
	(c) within six months of the trade union giving the employer notice in writing that the employee will be undergoing such training, the employee has done so, and the trade union has given the employer notice of that fact.
	(5) Only one notice under subsection (4)(b) may be given in respect of any one employee.
	(6) References in subsection (4) to sufficient training to carry out the activities mentioned in subsection (2) are to training that is sufficient for those purposes having regard to any relevant equality duty imposed by this Act or provision of a Code of Practice issued by ACAS or the Secretary of State.
	(7) If an employer is required to permit an employee to take time off under subsection (1), he shall also permit the employee to take time off during his working hours for the following purposes-
	(a) undergoing training which is relevant to his functions as a workplace equality representative, and
	(b) where the trade union has in the last six months given the employer notice under subsection (4)(b) in relation to the employee, undergoing such training as is mentioned in subsection (4)(a).
	(8) The amount of time off which an employee is to be permitted to take under this section and the purposes for which, the occasions on which and any conditions subject to which time off may be so taken are those that are reasonable in all the circumstances having regard to any relevant equality duty imposed by this Act or provision of a Code of Practice issued by ACAS or the Secretary of State.
	(9) An employee may present a complaint to an employment tribunal that his employer has failed to permit him to take time off as required by this section.
	(10) References in subsection (2) to equality audits and assessments are to equality audits and assessments that are sufficient for those purposes having regard to the relevant equality duty imposed by this Act or provision of a Code of Practice issued by ACAS or the Secretary of State.
	(11) In subsection (2)(a), the reference to qualifying members of the trade union is to members of the trade union-
	(a) who are employees of the employer of a description in respect of which the union is recognised by the employer, and
	(b) in relation to whom it is the function of the workplace equality representative to act as such.
	(12) For the purposes of this section, a person is a workplace equality representative of a trade union if he is appointed or elected as such in accordance with its rules.
	(13) In this section "trade union" has the meaning given in section 5 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.'.
	New clause 25- Application of the National Minimum Wage
	'In the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 (c. 39) for section 40 (mariners) there is substituted-
	"40 Mariners
	For the purposes of this Act, an individual employed to work on board a ship which either-
	(a) is registered in the United Kingdom under Part II of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 (c. 21) (and that individual is ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom); or
	(b) is trading solely between United Kingdom ports, anchorages, roadsteads or offshore installations,
	shall be treated as an individual who under his contract ordinarily works in the United Kingdom unless that employment is wholly outside the United Kingdom; and related expressions shall be construed accordingly."'.
	New clause 26- Equal pay audit following contravention by employer
	'(1) In the event that a court or employment tribunal finds that an employer has contravened a term modified or included by an equality clause, the employer shall be required to undertake an audit, to be known as an equal pay audit, and to make the results of the audit available in the prescribed manner.
	(2) In this section "prescribed" means prescribed in regulations made by the Secretary of State.'.
	New clause 33- Mandatory pay audits (No. 2)
	'(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed the Secretary of State shall by regulations require designated employers to conduct a pay audit and to publish information relating to the pay of its employees for the purpose of showing whether there are differences in the pay of male and female employees.
	(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) regulations made pursuant to subsection (1) shall require designated employers to publish information including-
	(a) the average hourly pay of male workers and the average hourly pay of female workers within its employment;
	(b) in respect of each role within the organisation-
	(i) the average pay awarded to workers engaged in the role;
	(ii) the percentage of men and women engaged in that role;
	(iii) the gap, if any, between the average hourly pay of male and female employees in that role; and
	(iv) the average length of service of men and women engaged in that role; and
	(c) information identifying-
	(i) any description of activities carried out in the course of employment with the employer by any group of workers who are wholly or mainly women;
	(ii) any descriptions of activities carried out in the course of employment with the employer by any group of workers who are wholly or mainly men;
	(iii) the relative values of the descriptions of activities falling within paragraph (c)(i) and paragraph (c)(ii) respectively; and
	(iv) in relation to descriptions of activities within paragraph (c)(i) and paragraph (c)(ii) which are judged to be of equal value to each other, the average hourly pay of male workers and average hourly pay of female workers carrying on those activities.
	(3) For the purposes of this section, "pay" means the ordinary basic or minimum wage or salary and any other consideration, whether in cash or kind, which the worker receives directly or indirectly, in respect of his employment, from his employer and includes the cost to the employer of-
	(a) any pensions contributions paid by the employer in respect of the worker,
	(b) any bonus or other performance related or incentive payment; and
	(c) any discretionary benefit granted to a worker in connection with his or her employment.
	(4) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) regulations made pursuant to that subsection shall specify the process which an employer must follow in conducting a pay audit, the form in which the information must be published, and the degree and means of publicity to be made.
	(5) In making regulations pursuant to subsection (1) the Secretary of State shall adopt best practice for promoting awareness of the nature and causes of any pay gap between persons of different genders as set out by the International Labour Organisation from time to time.
	(6) The Secretary of State shall consult with the Equality and Human Rights Commission as to how to ensure that the regulations shall reflect best practice prior to the making of the first regulations and no less than every five years thereafter and shall amend the regulations as necessary to ensure that best practice is maintained.
	(7) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) regulations made pursuant to that subsection shall provide that where an employer fails to publish information as required by regulations made pursuant to subsection (1) an employer shall not be entitled to submit a material factor defence in accordance with section 66 in relation to any period for which they are in breach of their obligations under those regulations.
	(8) Where the information published by an employer reveals that there is a difference in the average pay of men and women doing relevant types of work as set out in section 61, then in any proceedings to enforce a sex equality rule or sex equality clause it shall be presumed that there is such a breach unless the employer can show a material factor defence.
	(9) Regulations made pursuant to subsection (1) may make provision for a failure to comply with the regulations-
	(a) to be an offence punishable on summary conviction by a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale;
	(b) to be enforced, otherwise than as an offence, by such means as is prescribed.
	(10) The reference to a failure to comply with the regulations includes a reference to a failure by person acting on behalf of an employer.
	(11) Regulations made pursuant to subsection (1) shall provide that an employer must conduct a pay audit and publish information relating to the pay of its employees within six months of the coming into force of the regulations.
	(12) Regulations made pursuant to subsection (1) shall provide that where an employer (A) is able to determine the terms and conditions of employment as between another employer (B) and its employees, A shall publish the information that B would otherwise be required to publish in a way which is consolidated with the information for all other employees of A whose terms and conditions A may determine, and where A publishes consolidated information B shall not be in breach of those regulations if it does not publish any information.
	(13) A designated employer means an employer who has no less than 21 employees.
	(14) Regulations made pursuant to subsection (1) shall require designated employers publishing information in relation to the average hourly pay of employees to specify how much of the hourly rate constitutes ordinary basic or minimum wage or salary and how much, if any, constitutes other consideration and to specify the types and amounts of any such other consideration.'.
	New clause 36- Exemption for small businesses
	'This Act does not apply to any employer who has fewer than 250 employees.'.
	New clause 38- Prohibition of affirmative or positive action by public authorities
	'(1) It is unlawful for a public authority to promote or engage in any form of affirmative or positive action, as defined in subsection (4), when recruiting employees and making appointments.
	(2) Any act by a public authority which contravenes the provisions of this section is actionable as a breach of public duty.
	(3) For the purposes of this section "public authority" has the same meaning as in section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (c. 42).
	(4) For the purposes of this section, "affirmative or positive action" means any action that is intended to give a benefit or encouragement to a particular group or groups of people of people, on the basis of the-
	(a) age,
	(b) sex,
	(c) sexual orientation,
	(d) race,
	(e) nationality,
	(f) disability,
	(g) religion, or
	(h) socio-economic status
	of members of that group
	(5) Such actions include, but are not restricted to, the setting and pursuit of targets in respect of any of the characteristics specified in subsection (4) for the purposes of-
	(a) recruitment, or
	(b) appointment of persons to any scheme, programme, post or other similar such position.'.
	Amendment 33, in clause 38, page 22, line 17, leave out 'on at least two other occasions'.
	Amendment 60, in clause 62, page 40, line 32 , leave out paragraph (a).
	Amendment 61, page 40, line 33, leave out from 'work' to end of line 34.
	Amendment 63, page 41, line 7, leave out paragraph (a).
	Amendment 64, page 41, line 13, leave out subsection (6).
	Amendment 65, in clause 63, page 41, line 22 , leave out from 'B,' to end and insert
	'B's term is modified so as not to be more favourable;'.
	Amendment 66, page 41, line 24, leave out from 'B,' to end and insert
	'B's terms are modified so as to remove such a term;'.
	Amendment 67, in clause 64, page 41, line 35, leave out from 'B,' to end of line 36 and insert
	'B's term is modified so as not to be more favourable;'.
	Amendment 1, page 43, line 1, leave out clause 66.
	Amendment 68, in clause 66, page 43, line 14 , leave out subsection (3).
	Amendment 69, page 44, line 23, leave out clause 71.
	Amendment 70, page 47, line 2, leave out clause 74.
	Amendment 13, page 47, line 27, leave out clause 75.
	Amendment 34, in clause 78, page 49, leave out line 39.
	Amendment 75, in clause 123, page 76, line 14 , leave out from 'forces' to end of line 16.
	Amendment 76, page 76, line 26, leave out clause 124.
	Amendment 77, page 76, line 37, leave out clauses 125 and 126.
	Amendment 78, page 79, line 9, leave out clause 127.
	Amendment 93, page 97, line 9, leave out clauses 154 and 155.
	Amendment 18, in clause 155, page 98, line 7, leave out 'as qualified as' and insert 'equally qualified to'.
	Amendment 125, page 151, line 24, leave out schedule 7.
	Amendment 126, in schedule 9, page 160, line 26 , leave out paragraph 1.
	Amendment 127, page 162, line 3, at end insert-
	'(g) a requirement to be married.'.
	Amendment 128, page 164, line 2, leave out paragraph 8.
	Amendment 129, page 164, line 13, leave out paragraph 9.
	Amendment 24, page 165, line 13, leave out paragraph 11.

Vera Baird: The Committee heard compelling evidence from disability organisations that disabled people are being discriminated against by having their initial applications rejected by some employers once those employers are aware of a person's disability. It also heard that the widespread use of pre-employment inquiries can act as a deterrent to some disabled people making applications for work. The Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation, for instance, told us that restricting the use of pre-employment inquiries
	"is probably the single biggest difference and improvement that could be made through the Equality Bill in relation to the employment of disabled people."
	In the light of that evidence, we are convinced of the need to legislate to deter employers from asking health-related questions and using the information gained for discriminatory purposes. Through the new clause we are providing for unscrupulous employers to be brought to account if they ask questions about health and disability-for reasons not provided for in the new clause-and thereafter reject, or fail to consider, candidates for work because of a declared disability. Where an employer fails to progress a person's application after having asked a question that does not fall within the situations specified and allowed, and the person subsequently makes a claim to an employment tribunal for direct discrimination, the burden of proof will shift to the employer to show that he or she has not discriminated against the applicant because of the disability. If the employer cannot do so, they will be found to have directly discriminated and there are then issues of compensation. To ask the question and to rely on the information so as not to select the disabled candidate is unlawful. The provision will strengthen the burden of proof in favour of the disabled person, so that the tribunal must require the employer to show that it has not discriminated. Together with the guidance that we will issue, it will make it very clear to employers that they should not ask health-related questions unless they can show that they are for one of the specified purposes.

Philip Davies: The Solicitor-General talks about how she is strengthening the burden of proof, but as an eminent lawyer herself, when did she decide that the principle of being innocent until proven guilty should no longer apply in British law?

Vera Baird: I am really grateful to be called an eminent lawyer by one so knowledgeable as the hon. Gentleman, but he is talking about the criminal law, not the civil law, in which burdens of proof shift to fulfil policy obligations. I hope that I have made that clear, but I say again that to ask health-related questions and rely on the information given to not select a disabled candidate will be unlawful.
	Some Opposition Members would have preferred a provision that prohibited health and disability-related inquiries until the point that a job offer was made, but as we have developed the provision, we have had to take account of a range of recruitment processes. There are situations in which the ability to ask health and disability-related questions is essential during the recruitment process. For example, for some jobs with genuine health and fitness requirements, the candidate has to undergo a fitness assessment before a job offer is made. To delay that assessment until the point of the job offer would unduly delay and disrupt established recruitment processes. That is a fairly clear position.
	The new clause strikes the right balance between protecting disabled people from prejudicial discrimination and permitting employers to seek information about health and disability, but only where it is appropriate to do so. It sets out that they will be able to ask health and disability-related questions at the application stage in four specific circumstances, without taking what I will call the "tribunal risk". First, an employer may make inquiries to identify any requirement for reasonable adjustments to the recruitment process. That is essential, as the duty to make such adjustments is fundamental to opening up opportunities for disabled people to gain employment. How can they be made if nobody knows that they are needed?
	Secondly, an employer can make inquiries for the purpose of monitoring diversity in the range of people making job applications. We were told by stakeholders that that monitoring is important to encourage diversity and improve job prospects for disabled people. Thirdly, the new clause provides for inquiries that facilitate the delivery of positive action for disabled people. We all agreed in Committee that that is an important tool in improving work opportunities for disabled people.
	Finally, an employer will be able to make inquiries where there is a genuine occupational requirement for the job on offer to be filled by a disabled person or a person with a particular disability. In such cases, it will be important for the employer to be able to identify candidates with the required disability at an early stage. In addition, the new clause provides for an exception for health-related questions asked for the purpose of national security vetting.
	In other cases, an employer will reduce the risk of a penalty if health-related inquiries are delayed until after the applicant has passed some form of assessment or interview based on non-health criteria. If there is no form of assessment, the employer will be able to make health-related inquiries when they have decided to make a job offer. The aim is to prevent a disabled person from being screened out solely on the basis of their disability without first being given the opportunity to show that they have the skills and competences for the job on offer. That will address one of the key concerns of disability organisations-that disabled people are being screened out without ever getting to the interview or selection stage. We will do all that we can to ensure that the new provision is well known, so that it can overcome the deterrent effect that health-related inquiries made at the initial application stage can have on disabled people's willingness to apply for work. At the same time, it will promote opportunities for disabled people in the labour market by facilitating positive action and recruitment where there is a genuine occupational requirement.
	The new clause will be an appropriate deterrent to employers using the inquiries in question to gain information for discriminatory purposes, and it will ensure that employment opportunities are promoted, for example though reasonable adjustments. I seek the approval of the House for the new clause.

John Penrose: We welcome the intention behind Government new clause 40. It is fair to say that the Government have responded-or certainly they have attempted to respond-constructively to concerns that were raised in Committee. A number of Members on both sides of the Committee called for action, so there is a fair degree of emerging consensus on both sides of the House on this important issue, and the various parties are at least on strongly converging tracks, which is always to be welcomed.
	The Minister's outline of the new clause was tremendously helpful, but she may have a little further to travel, because the measure has been greeted with a fair degree of confusion, concern and worry by some groups outside this place. They say that it is fairly complicated and that it seems to involve an awful lot of requirements for people to take things to tribunals, and they are not quite sure whether it will genuinely do the job that it is intended to do.
	For example, the Terrence Higgins Trust has taken a fairly straightforward view, stating:
	"THT is very disappointed with New Clause 40, and the impact it would have is minimal in relation to the US-style ban on irrelevant pre-employment health-related questions that we've been calling for."
	As the Minister will be aware, the proposed new clause in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper) seeks to give effect to that basic approach.
	It may be that some of concerns of the Terrence Higgins Trust will be allayed by the Minister's explanation of some of the Government's thinking behind the way they have put the new clause together, but I suggest that she has a fair way to go to speak to one or two organisations. Will she lay out some of the evidence and some of the more detailed work that she and her team have clearly been doing since Committee?

Vera Baird: Clearly, I am very happy to confirm that we will do all we can to ensure that the reassurance the hon. Gentleman seeks is given. As I have set the clause out, it has strength in it. The difficulty about a measure that merely declares something to be unlawful is that it does not actually have a great deal of strength, but we make very clear what the consequences of behaving in a certain way are. Obviously, the idea is not that people will have to go to the tribunal, but that employers will be well apprised of the consequences of breaking the law.

John Penrose: I thank the Minister for her constructive response and her willingness to provide and publish any evidence and so forth that she and her team have been gathering. I am sure that that will go a long way to reassuring organisations such as the Terrence Higgins Trust and Rethink. The latter
	"expressed its disappointment...following the government's decision not to introduce a clause in the Equality Bill to stop employers asking job applicants about their medical history before deciding whether to invite them for interview."
	It sounds as though those are merely technical differences. I think we are agreed on the principle, which is worth restating briefly for the record. The principle is this: there is a large body of evidence that shows that if employers ask for details of health background before interview or before a job application decision is made, there is more opportunity-let me put it no more strongly than that-for discrimination of various kinds, including, most severely, direct discrimination.
	If we delay that process and say that employers may ask for details of health background only after they have decided to offer someone the job-at that point, the question becomes, "What special and reasonable adjustments may be required by someone who has a disability to allow them to do the job that they have been offered?"-the chance of disability-related discrimination is significantly reduced.
	Having made those points, we welcome the Government's intention and look forward to them publishing the technical background to their work on the matter. We want to keep our powder dry as to whether that means debating the matter again at some later stage, but all being well, we are at least making steady progress in the right direction, and we salute the Government's approach.
	I also wish to speak to two other groups of Conservative proposals which are in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean-one is on positive action and the other on gender pay reporting. Our proposal on positive action seems rather technical and seeks to draw a distinction between someone who is "equally qualified" as opposed to someone who is "as qualified". That is a very small word difference, but it is profound in terms of the thinking behind it and the implications that it might have. The whole point of positive action-I think that this is widely agreed on both sides of the House-is that it is an important aid to people who would otherwise find it difficult to apply successfully for jobs and positions in all sorts of different professions and sectors of the economy, but which, importantly, stops short of positive discrimination. There is a world of difference between the two and it is an important distinction to make. Positive action, to summarise it in layman's terms, involves providing as much assistance as reasonably possible-holding someone's hand in as many different ways as possible-in all the steps that lead up to and during the interview process for a new position. It deliberately stops short of allowing the employer making the job offer to select someone who is less well qualified simply because they have the protected characteristics in the Bill. In other words, it allows helping someone to prepare and to put themselves across in the best possible way when applying for a job, but the eventual decision on who gets that job must be purely meritocratic and based on the principle of appointing the person best qualified for the job.
	In Committee, there was a debate about that principle. At the start of the process, it appeared that that principle-and the distinction between positive action and positive discrimination-had been bulwarked and preserved by the use of the words "equally qualified". If two people are equally qualified for a job-what we might call a "tiebreak situation"-an employer may choose someone with a protected characteristic, say from a particular racial group or of a particular sexual orientation, in preference to someone who has not such a characteristic. The important point is that the two candidates are equally qualified. That would not, of course, breach the crucial distinction between positive action and positive discrimination. However, in Committee, we had a concerned and detailed debate about the Government's rephrasing of that provision, so that instead of being "equally qualified", it reads "as qualified". That is important because we are worried that "as qualified" might mean that of two candidates who are both adequately qualified-they both clear a minimum threshold as defined by the employer as required for the job in question-the candidate who is best qualified and well above the minimum threshold, but does not have any of the protected characteristics, may not get the job because the employer would be within their rights to give it to someone who is less well qualified but had cleared the hurdle and possessed a protected characteristic. That would breach the important distinction between positive action-giving people a hand in their preparation-and positive discrimination, which is allowing the decision on who is offered a job to be made on any grounds other than merit.
	We are not the only people to be worried about the distinction. The Equality and Human Rights Commission, in its supporting documentation, has also expressed concern. In its Equality Bill report stage briefing, issued on 2 November, it said:
	"Positive action would allow employers choosing between two equally qualified candidates to select the successful candidate on the grounds that they are from an under-represented or disadvantaged group."
	I am interested to note that the EHRC is supporting the principle of "equally qualified" and using that phrase in its briefing document, rather than "as qualified", although I am sure that it is not the only organisation that supports the principle of "equally qualified" and that that support is shared on both sides of the House. The Equality and Diversity Forum, in its briefing on the Report stage of the Bill, says:
	"The proposed provision does not permit recruitment or promotion only because a person has a protected characteristic, it only applies to candidates who are equally qualified and in a situation where a group is under-represented."
	In other words, there is great consensus on the principle of "equally qualified" and applying the clause in a tiebreak situation, but I do not think that there is a consensus on the notion of allowing a candidate who is adequately qualified, but less well qualified than another candidate, to be preferred simply because they are from a minority group. That is our concern.

Vera Baird: I was yesterday at a seminar organised by the EHRC on positive action, and it is absolutely in agreement with the way in which the Government see this issue. I can assure the hon. Gentleman of that because the chairman introduced me and said so, I went on to speak and he was on the panel with me afterwards, and a cigarette paper could not have fitted between our views.

John Penrose: I thank the Minister for that clarification. My concern is that in its written documentation, the EHRC talks about "equally qualified". In Committee, the Minister said that the wording "as qualified" was effectively the same thing, but given the concerns that are being voiced by my party and many others about this-and the importance of the principle that is being addressed-and if there is no difference between the phrases, why will she not use the one that everyone else is using? I ask her to address that point if she can, and we reserve the right to press that amendment to a Division, depending on her response.
	We had an extensive debate on gender pay, and the Government's proposals to introduce a requirement for gender pay reporting, in Committee. There are other provisions on gender pay in the Bill which had wide support, notably the one that would make it illegal for employers to prevent work colleagues from comparing and discussing their pay so that they can see whether, for example, women are being paid less than men for an equivalent role. However, the clause on gender pay reporting was not so unanimously supported. There was a wide consensus about the importance of the issue and the need to sort it out. The gender pay gap is one of the most pernicious, longstanding, significant and unjustifiable examples of workplace inequality in this country, and it is caused by many facets of our society, not least direct discrimination. Rightly, there was consensus on both sides of the Committee when this issue was discussed that it must be addressed and cannot be taken for granted, even though, ever since the original equal pay legislation back in the 1970s, we have seen a steady-I would not say rapid, because it has been stately and slow-and inexorable reduction in the gender pay gap. In Committee, we discussed whether that steady reduction-and it has fallen quite a long way in the last 30 years-was running out of steam and losing momentum, so that additional measures were necessary. I am happy to say that since the Committee stage, new statistics have been published that show that the gender pay gap has continued to fall. It has not fallen by much, but it continues its slow and stately reduction. I am sure that we all want it to fall faster, and we certainly need to go further, but it is an issue on which our society has made great progress over an extended period.

Katy Clark: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that our progress has been poor compared with many of our neighbours, who have made significant improvements in the gender pay gap, and that Britain is falling behind? Given that we had legislation on that in 1970, it is an outrage that we are still talking about pay gaps in the region of 22 per cent.

John Penrose: I am happy to accept the point behind the hon. Lady's remarks, which is that we absolutely have to go further and that there is no cause for complacency. It is worth while saying that what we have has been working-albeit too slowly-but we need to continue pushing on. It would be a courageous person who claimed that Britain is all marvellous. She is right to point out that we have further to go.
	Our concern is that the causes of the gender pay gap are far from simple. Direct discrimination is clearly an issue, but many other very knotty and difficult issues will require careful addressing if we are to continue to erode and reduce the gender pay gap-and ideally at a faster rate, as the hon. Lady just mentioned. The causes of the pay gap are well known, but let me quickly summarise and rehearse a few of them. Problems with flexible working are well known. There is no doubt that, if someone is trying to combine child care, for example, with work, it is essential that they achieve a proper work-life balance and that they be allowed and helped to do that by their employer, whether public or private sector. Clearly progress needs to be made in allowing and encouraging flexible working.
	Child care is another issue. Affordable child care at the right time of day, on the right days of the week and in a convenient location, is essential for anybody trying to juggle family responsibilities with holding down a job. Repeatedly in surveys, the lack of suitable, affordable and conveniently sited child care comes up as one of the top two obstacles for people with family responsibilities to getting a job and, in particular, to remaining in it. The classic pattern is that someone manages to get a job and to get through the first few weeks, but the moment they first encounter something such as a school holiday, all of a sudden their existing child care arrangements are inadequate and they soon discover that they cannot continue to juggle those two important facets of their lives. Clearly, therefore, child care is crucial.
	Equally, there is the perfectly legitimate element of individual choice. I am sure that everyone would agree that it would be entirely wrong for parliamentarians to dictate to families up and down the country what their work-life balance should be and how they should prioritise child rearing, for example, versus employment. We need to create an environment in which people can make their own decisions based on their personal lives and situations, an environment in which those decisions are backed up, made simpler and supported rather than obstructed. However, it is legitimate to say that it is perfectly possible for people to take structurally very different decisions. Women might on average take different decisions from men, and part of that, in a free society, is perfectly acceptable, providing that they do it of their own free will and for the right reasons, rather than being pushed, cajoled or pressured.
	There are many different facets to gender pay discrimination and many reasons for it. It is not just me and other parliamentarians saying that. Some years ago, the Equal Opportunities Commission published a working paper, series No. 17, entitled "Modelling gender pay gaps". In it, it tried to break down the causes of the gender pay gap. It stated:
	"Broadly, the research finds that gender differences in life-time working patterns account for 36% of the pay gap. Rigidities in the labour market, including those that concentrate women into particular occupations and mean that they are more likely to work in smaller and non-unionised firms, account for a further 18% of the pay gap. 38% is due to direct discrimination and differences in the labour market motivations and preferences of women as compared with men. The remaining 8% is due to women's lesser educational attainment in the past".
	Thankfully, the latter gap is much reduced, and in some cases has gone the other way.
	The EOC report talks about the full-time gender pay gap, which is down to 12 per cent. in round numbers. The implication of those figures is that 38 per cent. of the 12 per cent. gender pay gap in full-time employment is, as the report states, due to two factors:
	"direct discrimination and differences in the labour market motivations and preferences of women as compared with men",
	which we have just been talking about. There remains a systemic difference in this country between women with child care needs and men. In other words, roughly 5 per cent. of the gender pay gap is due either to direct discrimination or differences in labour market motivations. That means that the direct discrimination, which is the point of clause 75, and of obliging companies to publish gender pay differences, accounts for between 1 and 5 per cent. of the gender pay gap. That does not make it unimportant-it is potentially very important-but it is crucial for the purposes of the debate to understand the size of the issue that we are addressing.

John Mason: I am concerned about the drift of the hon. Gentleman's argument, which has been to reduce to 1 per cent. the 22 per cent. gap quoted by the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Ms Clark). Is the intention of that to weaken the rights of women?

John Penrose: Emphatically not. I am trying to ensure that people in Parliament and the world outside who might be watching have a sense of the size of the opportunity that this measure might help with. As I was explaining, there are many other causes of the gender pay gap-I am sure that everybody in the Chamber knows that-and those causes need to be addressed in other ways. Most of my other points about flexible working, child care arrangements and so on need to be addressed by other parts of Government policy and, indeed, through employer action.
	We have just been talking about positive action. In laymen's words, I would argue that all the other points could, and should, be dealt with through positive action to help women to achieve their potential in employment.

Lynne Featherstone: Does the hon. Gentleman not see that the 22 per cent. differential relates to women in work, and that the other issues to which he referred are not a reason for that 22 per cent. still to exist?

John Penrose: The point that I am trying to make is that the pay differential is caused by all those different points. The EOC report stated that only 38 per cent. of the difference in full-time work-our debate depends on whether we are talking about part or full-time work-which starts from a base of 12 per cent., is due to direct discrimination or differences in labour market motivations. I am just trying to establish the size of the additional reduction that we could achieve by publishing gender pay information: it is at most 38 per cent. of 12 per cent. and quite possibly only a small fraction of that. The point that I am trying to make, therefore, is that there are other things that we could, and should, be doing. I am sure that everyone on both sides of the House agrees that many things need to be done to improve access to child care and so forth. The Government have attempted to do that, and my party has published its proposals to do so. All those other things are vital if we are to continue making progress in reducing the gender pay gap.

Lynne Featherstone: The hon. Gentleman's argument very much minimises the size of the problem. I am concerned about 100 per cent. of the women who are discriminated against. There are other issues, but they do not play a part in gender pay scales or their publication, whether in terms of women in full or part-time work. That differential still exists for those women.

John Penrose: I completely accept the hon. Lady's point that the differential still exists for those women. I am trying to break the figures down so that we can understand which bits might be due to direct discrimination by employers, which is the most pernicious piece of the gender pay gap and needs to be a determined focus of our aim of reducing that part of the gap. However, it is important for us to understand that, even if we reduce to zero direct discrimination by employers-that would be wonderful and something for which we should all aim-we will still have a gender pay gap, if we do not fix all those other things. According to the EOC's analysis, the majority of the existing gender pay gap will still exist if we do not sort out the other points. That is all that I am trying to get at.

Vera Baird: I am intervening now because we are debating a massive group of amendments and it is better to deal with specific issues as we go through it. First-and very quickly, of course-the pay transparency provisions are not about direct discrimination only. Every time the hon. Gentleman refers to discrimination, he completely misses out indirect discrimination, which is still a big component. We are not just looking for direct discrimination. With pay transparency, we will find things such as ghettoisation. In particular departments, there have always been women who have always been underpaid. If we get transparency there, so that we can see what is happening, we can delve into it and remove the problems. It is not about disclosing just direct discrimination; some of it will be indirect discrimination, and some of it will be nobody's fault. Business, the public sector and employees now understand that unless people are fair they will not get the best service from their employees. We are just trying to look at that. To be honest-and to put it neatly-the hon. Gentleman is barking up the wrong tree by trying to confine what we are doing to its impact on direct discrimination. He is missing the point.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is always a pleasure to listen to the hon. and learned Lady, but I hope that that intervention, despite its incisiveness, will not be copied by others in terms of length.

John Penrose: The Solicitor-General is right that I have been focusing on direct discrimination up until now, and it is absolutely true that there are many other issues that responsible employers are already addressing and will need to continue to address. It is pretty unnecessary to have a gender pay reporting requirement to work out that every person in a particular department is a woman or that they are grossly over-represented in a particular department. One only has to walk into a department and look around to see that.
	It is also true that the measures required to deal with some of the examples that the hon. and learned Lady gave, such as ghettoisation, are different. Such problems may require mentoring or help with career development, for example, which are the kinds of things that we addressed briefly in our discussion about positive action. Many employers are now undertaking such actions in an attempt to increase the proportion of women whom they first recruit and retain, and then help to progress throughout their organisations. I hope that I am not barking up the wrong tree, because I think that those things are important. I was just seeking to get an estimate of the size of the opportunity that we are talking about.
	However, there is agreement on the fact that it would none the less be worth while going ahead with a gender pay reporting requirement, even if we were talking about only a couple of percentage points of the pay differential. It would also be worth doing if the costs were proportionate. We are talking about a pernicious problem and an injustice that needs to be dealt with. Providing that we can deal with it in a way that is proportionate and sensible, we should get on and do so.

Katy Clark: Another statistic from the report that the hon. Gentleman has quoted from is that 60 per cent. of women's employment is concentrated in just 10 occupations. Is not one of the issues that many of the jobs that women have traditionally chosen to do are undervalued? That is why we need to make the Equal Pay Act 1970 work, and also why we need the reporting provisions-and, I would say, other provisions-to strengthen equal pay legislation.

John Penrose: The hon. Lady makes an important point, which is akin to the point about ghettoisation. There might be different functions in a company or even entire sectors in which women have traditionally found it easier to get work. I would suggest that the reason for that will at least partly be the convenient hours that women can get in those sectors and the fact that they might fit more directly with the breakdown of time between child care and family responsibilities and work. However, that does not necessarily make what happens right. That is why I talked earlier about the importance of adequate child care, in order to give women more choices than they have had in the past, although publishing pay reporting figures is not necessarily the answer to that problem. Sorting out child care would be a far faster and, I would suggest, a far more robust response to the problem.
	Gender pay reporting would none the less be worth doing if it were a trifle-something that would be cheap to do-and if we could thereby address the full-time gender pay gap of between 1 and 5 per cent., wiping it out or at least providing the information that would allow it to be wiped out. If gender pay reporting were that cheap, my party would be saying, "Well, this is a sensible and acceptable price to pay." However, the costs are causing me and many others grave concern.
	In the Government's defence, the calculation has risen-I had a bit of a go at the Government about the issue in Committee. The House will be pleased to hear that the calculation has risen-it has nearly doubled, in fact. The Government say that the one-off implementation costs for large companies-those with more than 250 employees, such as Tesco, Shell or O2-have gone up from an estimated £92 per firm to £215.

Katy Clark: Before the hon. Gentleman talks in any more detail about the costs of gender pay reporting, does he not accept that equal pay legislation has been in force since 1975? That is more than 30 years, yet employers have been breaking the law since then by paying men more than they pay women. If it was any other area of society, we would be talking about taking action against those people in the courts. Why does he think that it is legitimate to discriminate in that way and that the state should not insist that we take urgent action to ensure that those people stop breaking the law?

John Penrose: I am afraid that I am very disappointed with that intervention, because I had hoped to make it clear, from both the tone and the content my remarks so far, that I think it essential that we should continue to make progress in this area. We have more progress to make, as the hon. Lady and I agreed in our earlier exchanges. What I am debating is how to do that and what the most effective way of doing it quickly is. In this case, I am also debating the best way of doing that in a cost-effective way-that is not to say that it is not worth doing anyway, but it has to be cost-effective and done in a proportionate way.
	To return to my earlier point, the one-off implementation costs in the Government's impact assessment have gone up from £92 per company to £215, and the ongoing cost per company has gone up from £15.38 a year to £41. Under the new regime, therefore, Tesco or any other large FTSE 100 company will spend £215 to prepare for gender pay reporting and another £41 to do it annually thereafter. I do not think that I am alone in welcoming the fact that the Government have gone away and increased their numbers, but I fear that they have not increased them by anything like enough. Frankly, those numbers are still not even remotely believable. If we can come up with numbers that are believable and still proportionate, my party will take a very different approach, but we remain concerned and therefore seek the Minister's reassurance.
	Gender pay is clearly important, but it is not the only source of pay differentials according to people's protected characteristics. There are not just gender pay differentials; there are also differentials on the basis of disability and many other protected characteristics. The issue is important, as I have said. However, if it is that important, we should be considering ways to erode those other pay differentials. We are concerned that by taking the sledgehammer to the problem that the Government propose, the wider issues will perhaps be ignored, or at least not given enough priority. I will now bring my remarks to a close. I look forward to the contributions of other hon. Members.

Lynne Featherstone: Let me start by dealing with the pre-employment questionnaires. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches welcome Conservative new clauses 21 and 22, which deal with prohibited pre-employment inquiries. Like new clause 11, they address some of the problems that people have before they even get into work. Whereas most of the Bill is concerned with discrimination in work, those new clauses deal with the barriers in the first place.
	It was interesting to listen to the debate between the Labour and Conservative Front Benchers. I hope that they will reach an accommodation, because they both have right on their sides. The Conservative new clauses would firmly place the onus on employers not to make inquiries about a candidate's disability status. That is the most important point-the question should never be asked, so that there can never be an inhibition on progressing, as opposed to being able to make a complaint only afterwards, whether the candidate has got the job or not.
	On the other hand, the Government's new clause 40 seems to us to impose a slightly narrower restriction. For individuals to demonstrate that they did not get the job because of the pre-employment questions they were asked, there is a higher hurdle, making it more difficult to police and to prevent such inquiries. The merit of the Government's new clause is that there is a sanction and that a clear framework is set out for how an individual should seek a remedy when they have a complaint. That remedy, however, applies only if they did not get the job. The framework is welcome, but the narrowing is not. The Conservative position is nearer to that of the Liberal Democrats. Through this Bill, we are seeking to level the playing field-that is the point-and to give people the fairest chance of getting to interview without being subject to the potential prejudices of the employer.
	That brings me to the Liberal Democrat new clause 11. Much of the Bill, as I said, is about what happens once people have got their job. On the basis of my experience of sitting on employment panels-I am sure other hon. Members have sat on them, too-as a local councillor for eight years in Haringey and for five years as an assembly member at the Greater London authority, together with all the anecdotal experiences and stories one hears, I have long been concerned that job applicants are being discarded at first sift either by the employer or by human resources departments. That prevents them from getting on to the shortlist and from being interviewed.
	I also recall the case in my own office here when two interns, whose surnames were Hussein and Patel, applied for a job. They were far more qualified than me, I have to say, and they told me about the hundreds of job applications they had made without even getting through to an interview. They certainly felt that their names played a part in that discard.
	From subsequent study and from thinking about the possibility of placing this new clause into the Bill, I have become aware of American research on brain patterns. It shows how when it comes to foreign-sounding names, it is the brain-rather than racism per se-that recognises and accepts what is familiar but subliminally and unconsciously discards what is alien or foreign. If someone is being interviewed by a racist, this is obviously not going to make a difference, but to be discarded, as my two interns were and as many others have been, simply because the brain works in a particular way seems to be a matter that we could and should look into.
	When children are being examined, we give them a number so that they can write it on the paper and avoid any inherent bias. The proposition is that people applying for a job could use something like a national insurance number so that they could avoid being knocked out at first sift. That will not solve all the problems all the time, but it is an entry-level requirement. When one comes to interview, all is then revealed.
	On Second Reading, I floated the thesis and, undeterred, tabled an amendment in Committee, and it was interesting when the Solicitor-General told the Committee that the Department for Work and Pensions was undertaking some survey work. At that point, she said that although she did not wish to tantalise the Committee, the first showings suggested significant discrimination. I was quite excited by that, as it identifies a real problem; whether or not this new clause is the solution is a matter for discussion. If there is a big problem, however, the use of anonymous CVs will be simple, effective and cheap-resource non-intensive, which should please Conservative Members, because it does not cost anything and does not involve a cost to business.
	Many benefits would flow from removing discrimination in the job market-opening up opportunities, spreading wealth, bringing about greater social cohesion and economic efficiency, from which we all benefit.  The Mail on Sunday obviously got the wrong end of the stick about what the Government were doing when it said that the City was very upset. Excuse me, but undertaking research into an issue to establish whether a change in the law is required sounds pretty sensible to me and I commend the Government and the Department for Work and Pensions for undertaking it, especially when it is on such an important issue as discrimination in employment practices. A smart employer would also know that the depth of scientific research backs up what the new clause is designed to achieve.
	I am very encouraged that this research has been carried out and I very much hope that the Solicitor-General will elaborate on the findings, which I understand showed clear discrimination based on name alone. People say "What's in a name?" and I think the answer is "Quite a lot." I greatly hope that the Government will support new clause 11. I will listen carefully to the Solicitor-General before I decide whether to test the will of the House, as she may wish to say more and propose that more work needs to be done.
	On the gender pay gap, which I believe is an extremely important issue, I do not think that there is a million miles between the Government and the Liberal Democrats other than about the degree to which we wish to see change and perhaps over the Government's belief that another four years of voluntary disclosure will work. The Liberal Democrats do not believe that it will. I was concerned and upset again, as I was in Committee, to hear the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) arguing in a way that suggested he wanted to minimise the effect of what we are seeking to do by closing the gender pay gap. Good Lord- [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but the whole manner in which he put the case seemed to suggest that he was saying, "Well, basically women have children, so we kind of have to understand that that puts them outside the workplace."  [Interruption.] That is what it felt like as I sat listening to the hon. Gentleman, and these are arguments that women have heard for many decades. What he said seemed to have those echoes and tones.

John Penrose: That was emphatically not what I was saying and it was not the intention of my remarks or the impression that I wanted to convey. What I was trying to say was that this is a crucial and pernicious problem that has persisted for a long time, albeit improving at a very slow rate, so that we needed to target what we do about it appropriately. Different parts of the gender pay gap, which is caused by different things, require different public policy responses. My argument was that this particular public policy response is a comparatively expensive way of focusing on a very small part of the problem when we would do better to focus on all the other bits, which would reduce the gap much faster.

Lynne Featherstone: I totally disagree because the message and intention behind disclosure would affect all areas in which women find themselves discriminated against; it does not pertain only to the market share of this problem, which the hon. Gentleman sees as so minimal and I see as so great.
	A series of Liberal Democrat new clauses are designed to deal with the issue of equal pay for women-involving mandatory pay audits, representative action, hypothetical comparators and defence of material factors. The issue is so important, which is why I am so pleased to debate this group of amending provisions on the Floor of the House. As the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Ms Clark) made so clear, it would be unforgiveable if women in this country did not secure the laws they need to bring about change to a disgraceful situation that has applied for nearly 40 years since the Equal Pay Act 1970.
	I am pleased that the hon. Lady tabled new clause 33, which is identical to the Liberal Democrat new clause 3 other than in respect of the numbers for the mandatory pay audit to kick in-100 for us, as opposed to 21. We based our figure of 100 on the pre-evidence submissions-by the Women's Commission, I believe. We view 100 as providing a reasonable level at which companies could operate without enormous expense. Quite frankly, we do not believe that the expense will be enormous at all, although the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare seems to think that it is prohibitive.
	It was clear to me in Committee that there was a great deal of support among both Labour and Liberal Democrat Members for mandatory pay audits. New clause 3 revisits the issue, and I shall be seeking to test the will of the House in relation to it. Mandatory pay audits are important in that they expose overall patterns of pay-although not individual salaries-to public scrutiny. The new clause would ensure that, at last, pay discrimination had nowhere to hide.
	Where we differ with the Government is on the question of whether audits should be voluntary or mandatory. Opponents of equal pay measures often argue that there can be no discrimination in the marketplace because that is the point of a market: firms that discriminate will be worse off. However, when an opportunity was provided to strengthen market pressures by ensuring that pay scales were disclosed-to give the market more information, which is what free-market theorists tells us that it needs-where were those people? They backed off as fast as they could, making themselves scarce.
	Mandatory pay audits are supported by Unison and the Fawcett Society. The problem with the Government's proposal is that it only suggests that information be published voluntarily until at least the year 2013. As has already been pointed out, the Equal Pay Act was passed 39 years ago, but according to the latest figures that I have from the Office for National Statistics, women are still paid 17 per cent. less than men.
	We should bear in mind that the Equal Pay Act was sparked by the gender pay gap. For every pound that men were paid at Ford's Dagenham car plant, women earned only 85p. On 7 June 1968 the women went on strike, but it was only when they were joined by the women and the men at the Ford's Liverpool plant that the company caved in and the Equal Pay Act was spawned. The point that I am making is that it takes both sexes to make the change.

Philip Davies: The hon. Lady is making her case powerfully, as she always does. She said that she was concerned about the gender pay gap. According to the Office for National Statistics, although among full-time workers women are paid less than men, among part-time workers they are paid more than men. Is the hon. Lady as concerned about the fact that men are paid less than women in part-time work as she is about the fact that women are paid less than men in full-time work, or is she bothered about only one side of the equation?

Lynne Featherstone: That is not my understanding of the figures.

Philip Davies: I have the figures here.

Lynne Featherstone: If that were the case-

Philip Davies: It is the case.

Lynne Featherstone: Then of course I am equally concerned. I am concerned about all discrimination. However, those are not the statistics that I have.
	The problem is that a law that was intended, in the best possible way, to change women's prospects for ever has not been effective. It is extraordinary to note that that is the case at both ends of the market. The Equality and Human Rights Commission has done a great deal of work in studying the pay gap in the financial sector. Admittedly, those in that sector probably receive far less sympathy from Members than those in the low-paid sector.
	Last year, the highest-paid female director of a company in the FTSE 100 took home £3.8 million. That figure, however, is dwarfed by the amount received by the highest-paid man, who took home a disgusting-if the House will excuse the word-£36.8 million, almost 10 times as much. Lest Members are in any doubt, I should make clear that I think such pay levels are insane, but the point is that from the highest earners to the lowest, women get a raw deal. It is as tragic as it is shameful that such gaps remain nearly 40 years after the passing of the Equal Pay Act.
	Apart from the fact that the Government's proposals for voluntary publication applied to firms with more than 250 employees, what was made clear in Committee was that they were working with the CBI, the trade unions and the Equality and Human Rights Commission to establish a single figure, or a small number of figures, according to which it could be judged from year to year whether a firm was making progress in reducing a gender pay gap. I do not know the magic number, or metric, that they agreed to adopt. I had hoped to have that information before the debate, but I do not have it, so I hope that the Solicitor-General will be able to tell us more. In any event, however, if it has been decided that that is how to monitor companies' progress in closing the pay gap, I consider the decision misguided, because it will not deliver real change.
	I can see the attraction, in terms of monitoring, of establishing a single figure or small number of figures according to which a company could be judged from year to year. The magic figure, or figures, might help the Equality and Human Rights Commission, if that is the body that will have to judge whether a company is closing the gap, but it will not do what the Liberal Democrats consider to be one of the most important things that disclosure can do. It will not put power into the hands of individuals by enabling them to discover whether they are being discriminated against.
	If the company for which a person works publishes its pay scales, the result-apart from public opprobrium-will be that that individual can establish whether he or she is being subjected to discrimination, and can then take his or her case to a tribunal. Someone who does not know whether he or she is being discriminated against will not have that power. Unfortunately, although the Government's proposed measure will help by allowing the monitoring commission to check on the overall pattern, it will not empower the individual.
	As was pointed out by the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran, an important aspect of mandatory pay auditing is that it puts a value on the different kinds of job held by men and women. Rather than proposing a measure that is good but not good enough, my colleagues and I are suggesting that firms that are reasonably sized or larger-100 employees seems an appropriate cut-off point-should be subject to mandatory auditing so that women, and indeed men, can see for themselves whether they are being discriminated against, and can make a claim if necessary. We as Members of Parliament should understand the power of transparency when it comes to publication. It has a very salutary effect.
	New clause 4 concerns representative actions. Currently, if I believed that I was being discriminated against in terms of pay, I could take my claim to an employment tribunal. As I have already said, the ability to see for themselves whether they are being discriminated against will put power into individuals' hands. However, an individual has to be quite brave and assertive to proceed with a claim, and the resources for tribunals are so inadequate that there is currently a backlog of cases. Women are waiting and waiting and waiting. According to evidence provided by the Fawcett Society, thousands of women are waiting for justice, and some have died while waiting.
	The aim of representative action is to speed up justice, to take the pressure off individuals, and to protect the system from breakdown and expense. Individuals could be represented by trade unions or, indeed, by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which ought to be able to act on behalf of a group of people who find themselves in roughly the same position and bringing the same kind of action.

John Mason: Does the hon. Lady agree that such a measure could have helped to solve local authority pay problems? It has taken many years for women doing jobs equivalent to those of men in local authorities in, I think, both Scotland and England and Wales to secure equal pay.

Lynne Featherstone: I do agree, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for his helpful intervention.

Philip Davies: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Lynne Featherstone: I will give way to what will possibly be a helpful intervention.

Philip Davies: I admire the sense of humour that the hon. Lady has shown in asking the Equality and Human Rights Commission to take up cases of this kind. The commission itself pays men more than women, white people more than members of ethnic minorities and non-disabled people more than disabled people, and its performance this year in respect of the last two categories has been worse than its performance last year. Is it not ludicrous that an organisation that cannot even do things properly itself should take up such cases-or does the hon. Lady expect it to take up cases against itself?

Lynne Featherstone: Well, the unions could help the Equality and Human Rights Commission out of its current difficulties. It does not matter which organisation is failing; where any organisation is failing, including the Equality and Human Rights Commission, it should be brought to book. The answer to this problem is simple: representative actions should be allowed, so that one action can cover and settle many others.  [Interruption.] Yes, I suppose people could join a union.
	In respect of an amendment I had tabled, what happened in Committee was interesting. When a similar one was tabled by a Labour Back Bencher, the Solicitor-General's manner and attitude softened. She is always delightful and accommodating of course, but she said that the Government hoped to be able to respond early in the autumn following the conclusion of some work that was being done by the Ministry of Justice on whether representative actions should come into play in tribunals. She also said that if they could not do so in time for Report stage in this House, they would seek to introduce such provision when the Bill was being considered in the other place. I therefore hope that the Solicitor-General will be able to inform us that progress has been made on this issue, and that the Government will either support our amendment or are committed to its inclusion in the Lords.
	The third of the series of issues to do with women's pay is very serious. New clause 5 is about the hypothetical comparator-that is a bit of a mouthful, but, after three stages of the Bill, I can now say it fairly easily. The provision is intended to enhance a woman's ability to bring a successful case. At present, when a woman pursues an unequal pay case, she is legally required to provide a real comparator in respect of her salary. If she wants to prove sex discrimination in pay, she has to be able to give a concrete example of a man in a comparable job being paid more.
	Often, however, that comparator simply does not exist. Many people do jobs where there is no one else, and especially no one of the opposite gender, in a comparable role. Such comparisons can therefore be difficult to provide. Furthermore, a higher bar is set for proving sex discrimination in pay differentials than for other forms of discrimination. There is no requirement to provide a real comparator in race or disability cases. In many other countries, a hypothetical comparator is allowed, and the TUC, the Fawcett Society and the Women's National Commission say that the legal hurdle has proved to be a major obstacle where a real comparator does not exist, such as for areas of employment where the work force are almost entirely female.
	We know that women's work is often undervalued and underpaid-that is the case for cleaners, hairdressers, carers, dinner ladies and many others-but it can be impossible to prove that, because it is impossible to provide a real comparator. Our amendment follows the lead of many other countries that allow a hypothetical comparator. I do not understand why the Government are resisting this proposal. It simply offers the same protection from discrimination for this strand of inequality as for others; it would set the bar for women fighting against pay discrimination at the same height as the bar for those fighting other forms of inequality.

David Howarth: The situation is even more extraordinary than that, because even for other aspects of sex discrimination-sex discrimination that does not involve pay-there is no need for a real comparator.

Lynne Featherstone: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention. One can never learn enough facts that can be used to rally to the cause.

Rob Marris: Can the hon. Lady explain how we would pick a hypothetical comparator without assuming what we were trying to prove?

Lynne Featherstone: We would do that in the same way as we would do it for any other purpose: we would evaluate it, audit it and make an assumption about it. The hypothetical question would be: what if a man were to do this job?
	New clause 6 addresses defence of the material factor. Although it is important, I shall discuss it only very briefly, as it is about a legal and highly technical point on which we do not seek to divide the House. The new clause would prevent an employer from using a spurious reason to justify discrimination and thereby avoid the obligations under the Bill.
	Finally, I wish to point out that we will be supporting a few new clauses and amendments tabled by Labour Back Benchers, such as that on mariners. We think that abolishing the exemption in respect of the minimum wage is particularly important. We wish to show our support for that. We cannot understand how discriminating by having two different levels of minimum wage can be right. Why will the Bill not change that? We will support that Labour Back-Bench amendment.  [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) asks from the Tory Back Benches whether we will support any of his amendments; I have to tell him that we will not.

John McDonnell: This legislation has the potential to be a landmark Bill for the Government, and I welcome it overall. As an aside, however, may I say that because we have only a little over five hours to debate all the amendments, we will not have sufficient time to address many of them? Indeed, we may deal with less than half of them. That is surprising, because tomorrow in this House there will be a debate on European affairs with no Division, and the next day the House is not even sitting. I therefore wish to put on the record my concern about the management of this business. I shall address both the amendments standing in my name and some that I support standing in the name of my colleagues. Bearing in mind my concerns about time, I shall be as brief as possible.
	New clause 24 would introduce statutory recognition for equality representatives. When we introduced other employment legislation-particularly on health and safety, but also on learning within the work setting-we tried to ensure that the representatives of the work force were fully engaged in the implementation of that legislation. Such legislation has been generally supported in the House. There have been debates recently about health and safety, but I think we have got beyond most disputes with regard to health and safety in the workplace. There is broad support in all parts of the House for the idea that on key issues such as health and safety and learning in employment, and also, now, equality issues, it is useful for representation from the work force to be involved in the implementation of the policy itself. In order to do that properly, we need to ensure that these representatives are effective and give them statutory recognition that enables them to have time off and the authority to meet employers to resolve matters on behalf of their work force. This amendment simply seeks to put equality reps, which already exist in many areas of the work force, on the same statutory footing as health and safety representatives.
	One argument in favour of this Bill that is supported on both sides of the House is that greater equality in employment matters increases the efficiency of organisations. There is the potential for the companies and agencies people work for to become more effective as a result of being more equal, and therefore more representative of the community overall. I accept that some people may say there are issues to do with the cost of allowing equality reps to have time off for training and so forth, but let me offer the example of what has happened in respect of health and safety. Where health and safety reps have been effective, they have saved the employer money and increased the efficiency of the company because it has been able to avoid litigious disputes on certain issues. That will also be true of equality reps. They will become trained in equality matters, and as a result they will be able to advise both their fellow workers and employers in the implementation of the equality legislation that we shall enact over the coming months. They will be able to assist the company to become more efficient and to avoid lengthy employment tribunals and other forms of legal action. As a result, they will avoid that cost burden in the future.
	This has been generally recognised, even by employers. I have seen one survey showing that 70 per cent. of the employers asked about the role of equality representation were supportive of the work that could be done, feeling that there should be at least partial, and perhaps considerable, involvement of trade union reps in the implementation of these polices, and that such involvement would be helpful to them. As I said, there has been widespread support for this approach elsewhere. In 2006 the Women and Work Commission particularly emphasised how effective equality reps could be, and the piloting work done since then as a result of the support that the Government have given through the trade union modernisation fund has demonstrated their effectiveness in practice.

David Drew: Does my hon. Friend accept that one of the most acute roles that equality reps can play is with regard to people with disabilities? I am thinking in particular of people who are coming back into work having had a mental health problem and who need friends to help bring them back into the workplace in an appropriate manner; as constituency MPs, we are all aware of examples of that being done very badly. If proper training is provided, this key role will help the Government, because it is part of their agenda.

John McDonnell: In an informal way, that is what is happening on the ground. The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) made the point that some equality issues can be best tackled through a mentoring process, whereby fellow workers give the support. However, we need to ensure that there is some authority to that, which is why I wish to put equality reps on a statutory footing. That will increase the impact and effectiveness of this legislation.

Jeremy Corbyn: A little later we will deal with a group of provisions dealing with discrimination on the basis of caste and descent. All the reports on that indicate that a lot of discrimination goes on, but the victims are very frightened and are unable to turn to anybody for help or advice because of the whole atmosphere and community in which they are at the time. Does my hon. Friend agree that properly trained and resourced equality reps could be extremely helpful in at least beginning to address this terrible problem?

John McDonnell: The worst thing that can happen is that we enact this legislation without making it effective and then rely on too many informal arrangements that allow the untrained barrack room lawyers to become involved, which in turn places a burden not only on the other members of the work force, but on the company or the agency employing the members of staff. That is why we must put all this on a professional and statutory footing. The recognition of equality reps should not be a contentious matter. As I said before, this has been done in other areas of employment legislation, and I hope that the Government will accept this new clause.
	Secondly, I wish to dwell for a short while on new clause 25, relating to the minimum wage for seafarers, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Gwyn Prosser); I hope that he will permit me to do so. He will speak more eloquently than I, but I wish to discuss this matter because it has become a personal crusade for a number of Members over the years. It is eight years since I first raised it in the House and I was hoping that today would be the day when we would resolve it once and for all.
	I chair the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers parliamentary group, of which my hon. Friend is a member, as is my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Ms Clark)-she, too, has taken up this issue. I wish to pay tribute to the RMT, which has valiantly pursued this campaign over the years. I shall name the officers involved because I want them to receive recognition for standing up for some of the most vulnerable workers in our work force. Thus I pay tribute to the RMT general secretary, Bob Crow, and to Steve Yandell, Steve Todd, James Croy and Malcolm Dunning, all of whom have worked alongside hon. Members from all parts of the House to try to get this matter resolved, and have given advice to the Government on how that should be done.
	This process started as a result of an exposé of the low rates of pay of certain workers on British-flagged ships. A number of years ago we emphasised those rates of pay, particularly those of Filipino workers, but I must say to hon. Members that this still goes on; it has not gone away. On the rates of pay for Filipino able seamen on P&O ferries between Liverpool and Dublin-we are not talking about seafarers who are crossing the world, but about seafarers operating on ferries close to us-a Filipino on the Norbay receives £313 a month and a Filipino on the Norbank receives £328 a month. Given that the UK minimum wage is about £1,000, those are poverty wages for people working less than 200 miles away from here, on a UK-flagged ship.
	Nearly eight years ago we made proposals in negotiation in which we sought to ensure that at least those people would be paid the minimum wage. We took the matter to the Deregulation and Regulatory Reform Committee-I was allowed to speak, even though I was not a member-and we were given the assurance that they would be paid a minimum wage within British waters. We came back to this House and celebrated a success, only to be told by the Government that this would apply not to "territorial waters", but to "internal waters": that means a boat that is moored, because the term has extremely limited coverage. I used to tell jokes about the Norfolk broads, where I sail, but this is no longer a jocular matter; it is a serious matter because it has gone on for so long.
	We then went back into negotiations with the Government to discuss how we could overcome this situation. We were told that the reason why the Government could not move beyond that position was because of various international laws, so we took our own legal advice. We supplied the Government with that advice-on two occasions they were supplied with separate forms of advice-in which it had been confirmed to us that it is extremely doubtful whether their hand is restricted in this way by international laws of the sea. Our latest advice, from Mr. Jonathan Chambers of Quadrant Chambers, clearly states:
	"In my view, the proposed amendment"-
	the proposal we made previously-
	"probably does not interfere with the right of innocent passage protected under section 3 of UNCLOS".
	As of yesterday, the Government remain of the view that their legal opinion says that we cannot implement the minimum wage in our territorial waters because of this "interference" with "innocent passage". Even if we cannot resolve this today-if the Government cannot accept the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover-I must say to them that there must be a way through this. So far they have not been willing or able to share their legal opinion with us. Can we at least share the legal opinions upon which the Government are basing their decision? Perhaps we should hold a seminar-I make this offer-where we get the lawyers together with Ministers and Members of Parliament who are interested in this subject to try to resolve it. I am sure that nobody in this House would want to support a situation whereby people are paid this minimal level of income, on which it is basically impossible to survive. This is poverty pay within the UK jurisdiction.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran has tabled new clause 33 on pay audits, which I wholeheartedly support, and I shall leave it to her to discuss it. As for the difference between the numbers, we simply felt that the numbers would reflect the Government's own attitude on other employment legislation, so we chose 21. Even if we could get the Government to agree to the proposal today, large numbers or workers would still not be included in the overall scheme.

Lynne Featherstone: May I say that 21 or 100 would be fine?

John McDonnell: That is extremely helpful.
	I shall now discuss amendment 33, which stands in my name. Ministers have worked extremely hard on this legislation to try to attack harassment. I welcome the part of the Bill that seeks to outlaw harassment at work and tries to place duties on employers to ensure that they deal with the matter. Under the Government's current proposals, clause 38(2) provides that an employer will be liable for harassment by a third party if the third party harasses the worker in the course of their employment-that is excellent-and the employer
	"failed to take such steps as would have been reasonably practicable to prevent the third party from doing so."
	Again, that is superb. Then, in my view, it undermines the real protection that could be given to employees, because it says that a worker must be
	"harassed...on at least two other occasions"
	before the employer has a duty to act.
	That flies in the face of the spirit of the legislation and, I believe, of what the Government originally intended. It means that an employer will be able to send someone out on more than one occasion to a vulnerable situation in which they will be harassed. It flies in the face of the original judgment, if Members can remember, in the Bernard Manning case, where black members of staff were subjected to racial abuse from that comedian when they were placed in such a vulnerable position by their employer.
	My amendment seeks to ensure that it does not have to take at least two other occasions before an employer's duty comes into play. The employer should have that duty on all occasions and in that way vulnerable workers will be better protected. The employer will still have a responsibility placed on them, but if they fail to take such steps as would reasonably have been practicable to prevent the third party from behaving in such a way, the legislation would cover them. They would still be protected. They would have to behave reasonably and, of course, if they could not predict that a person would be abused it is not unreasonable that they should not be covered by this clause. To send someone out on a number of occasions on which they are abused, in my view, flies in the face of what the Government originally intended in terms of the responsibilities placed on the employers.
	May I discuss amendment 34, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover, who will also go into it at some length? We have worked so hard on this together, so I want to try to get some clarity about where we are going in terms of the Government's proposals. I would welcome any interventions from Ministers to clarify the process by which they envisage that this next stage will be implemented.
	Let me give the background to the amendment. We have worked on this over the past decade, and some hon. Members will remember the debate that we had on the subject more recently. When the Race Relations Act 1968 was implemented 40 years ago, shipping was exempt. We were in a disgraceful position. Discrimination, although it was outlawed on land, could take place on ships. If people did not like the ethnicity of another passenger, they could legitimately refuse under those exemptions to share a cabin. Discrimination took place across the work force.
	In 1976, the Government tried to tackle some of those aspects of discrimination in reviewed legislation, but they still left employers' ability to discriminate against seafarers, particularly on wages. As I mentioned earlier, Filipinos are working on poverty wages because of that ability to discriminate. As a result of EU demands for compliance with EC law, the Bill seeks to outlaw all discrimination as regards seafarers and shipping. It also gives the Minister the power to designate who is included within the ambit of outlawing discrimination against seafarers. We sought to ask the Government to publish the regulations by which the Minister will determine the aspects of discrimination against seafarers that will be outlawed.
	I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Paul Clark), because he provided us with a letter on 30 November, which was also laid before the House via the Vote Office and the House of Commons Library and which followed up on a letter of 3 August. He enclosed a copy of the draft regulations, which set out the detail, as I understand it, of those seafarers who will be included in the ambit of the legislation. As far as I can see, it includes seafarers from the EC or the European economic area-the list of countries has been circulated in earlier discussions-and ensures that there is a definition of an employment relationship with this country, so that we have some clarity and certainty for those seafarers who will be included in the legislation to outlaw discrimination.
	Let me place on the record what the letter says. It says that the employment provisions of the Bill would apply
	"to every seafarer on a UK ship with a port of choice in Great Britain, so long as the seafarer either works at least partly in Great Britain, or is a UK or other EEA national (or has corresponding EC law rights) and has an employment relationship sufficiently linked to Great Britain."-[ Official Report, 30 November 2009; Vol. 501, c. 115WS.]
	I would be extremely pleased if we could get some clarity about what
	"an employment relationship sufficiently linked to Great Britain"
	is at some stage. It adds to the confusion about the ambit of the regulations.
	The Government have written to the various stakeholders to say that there will be a further consultation on the issue of pay, requesting evidence from industry representatives and the trade unions and evidence-based financial estimates of the likely impact of either outlawing differential pay rates altogether or continuing to allow the payment of differential rates to seafarers, but only where such differential rates would not operate to the disadvantage of nationals of EC or EEA states or to that of seafarers recruited in Great Britain.
	That consultation will now take place. We had a consultation, which lasted six months, in 2007. My understanding is that if the Government are convinced that there are evidence-based financial estimates that demonstrate that there should be some continuation of differential pay rates, the regulations will be subject to affirmative resolution after the Bill is enacted. That means, in fact, that if the Bill is enacted on 1 April, for example, and implemented next October, the regulations will be honed down during that period and only then will they come into force. That is almost a year in which people will be subjected to discriminatory pay rates.
	May I suggest to the Government that the simplest way of doing this would be for the consultation that is taking place, which Ministers have suggested will be short and sharp, to end early in the new year and for the decisions on the regulations to be made fairly swiftly? Rather than awaiting the enactment of the legislation and the publication of the amendments, the regulations could be enacted through the Bill. When the Bill gained Royal Assent on 1 April, so would the conditions and the import of the regulations. In that way, we could tackle discriminatory pay among some of the poorest workers immediately. That would send out a message about the Government's determination to seek equality in this field, where we have had such inequality for such a long time.
	I await the Minister's response on all this and the advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Dover about which issues he will press to a vote. This is such a fundamental issue of principle that I hope we will see some Government movement. I am sure other hon. Members will wish to see that, too.
	May I now discuss amendment 24, which I have tabled? It has been raised in the discussions already and is a further amendment on the subject of the minimum wage. I cannot remember on how many occasions I have tried this-it becomes like a hardy perennial. My intention is to try to remove the discrimination against young people in the minimum wage legislation.
	I come from a basic trade union background, and I believe that someone should be paid the rate for their job. That rate should be based on the work that they do and the value that they add to the company's work-and therefore their assistance towards its overall profit and future sustainability. A person who is making that contribution should be paid the rate for the job, no matter what age they are. This amendment would remove the ability to discriminate on the basis of age. If there are arguments to be made about the deterrent effect that such a change would have on the employment of young people, we need to see the evidence behind them because it has never been produced. We have never had any quantitative estimation of how many young people would be disbarred from employment as a result of being paid the rate for the job. The argument is the same as the one we had about the basic principle of having a minimum wage. We were told that it would cost jobs and would undermine the profitability of companies, but that has not happened.  [ Interruption. ] I am happy to give way if the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) wants to say something.
	This issue concerns basic principles of justice and equality, and I urge the Government, even at this late stage, to give some indication that, even if they cannot address it in this Bill, we will at least have a proper review about age discrimination against young people. I want to get a real debate going and get some real information about this issue, because it has not been considered satisfactorily by the Low Pay Commission and others, and it has become almost a given. I shall not press the amendment today because it looks as though we will be allowed only a few votes, given the way that time has gone on in this debate, but I say to the Government that I am not going to give up on this, and neither will other Members of the House. We will come back to it again and again until we have tackled this discrimination against young people.

Philip Davies: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). I do not agree with him about many things, but he is a great parliamentarian who always makes his case particularly well.
	May I start by thanking Mr. Speaker for his generous allocation of amendments for debate? His selection allows for a broad range of views to be heard, and we should all be grateful for that. I am aware that my views tend to be in a small minority in this place, but I have always believed that for a parliamentary democracy to work, everybody in the country should feel that someone in the House is speaking up for them. My views might have very little support in this place, but there is an argument that they have slightly more support out in the country as a whole. I am very grateful to Mr. Speaker for allowing the amendments in this group, about 20 of which are mine, to be debated.
	I want to reiterate the point made by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington about the time scale set out for the debate. There are many important issues further down the line that I would like us to debate, so, although I have tabled a large number of the amendments in this group, I shall endeavour to go through them as quickly as possible to allow some of those other important matters to be debated as well. It is a sad state of affairs when hon. Members who want to debate issues that they feel strongly about have to apologise at the start of their speech about not being able to express their views clearly because of the lack of time allowed for debate.
	The first amendment in the group that I have tabled is new clause 36, which states simply that the Bill would
	"not apply to any employer who has fewer than 250 employees."
	When I was framing the amendment, I intended to have a number far smaller than 250, which I thought quite high. I thought perhaps 25 or 50, but I eventually plumped for 250 because clause 75 on the gender pay gap-I shall come back to that clause later because I wish to delete it from the Bill-says that measures on gender pay gap information will not apply to
	"an employer who has fewer than 250 employees".
	Given that the Government feel that businesses of fewer than 250 employees are so small that they should not have to abide by all these measures, I thought that, in the spirit of co-operation, I would go along with their figures.

Sammy Wilson: I understand the reasoning behind the hon. Gentleman's point, but does he recognise that in a place such as Northern Ireland, where, thankfully, the Bill will not apply, even his amendment would mean that 90 per cent. of all sources of employment would be encompassed? They would be subject to the regulatory aspects of the Bill, which would add considerably to their cost burden.

Philip Davies: I am grateful for that helpful intervention about the situation in Northern Ireland, which the hon. Gentleman knows far more about than I do.
	I fear that the Government place regulation upon regulation on businesses, whether big or small. The thing in the House that causes me the most despair is the attitude of many Members-particularly, but not exclusively, Labour Members-who start from the premise that every business, however big or small, is simply a licence to print money. They think that if the dead hand of the Government were not involved in every element of policy, every business would automatically do everything it could to be as bad an employer as possible and to stuff its customers at every opportunity. I despair because that shows such a lack of knowledge about how businesses work. In my experience, every successful business has two things in common: it looks after its customers and it looks after its colleagues at work. Similarly, every failed business has two things in common: it does not look after its customers and it does not look after its colleagues at work. Much of the nanny state regulation is not necessary because every good business and every business that is likely to succeed knows perfectly well that in order to succeed it needs to look after the people who work for it and the people who pay the bills as customers. I can say in all honesty that, of those two categories, the most important group to look after is the employees because they look after the customers.

John Mason: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the evidence, historically, is that what he says is not the case? Before the minimum wage came in, employers were paying, in my memory, ridiculous amounts such as £1 an hour to security workers. The gap between those at the bottom and those at the top is getting wider, so he must surely accept that there is no evidence for his argument.

Philip Davies: There is plenty of evidence for my argument. I am quite happy to debate the merits or otherwise of the minimum wage with the hon. Gentleman, but given the time that we have available and the number of things that we want to get through, now might not be the most appropriate time to do so. I shall seek him out in the Tea Room and we can pursue this matter further at a later date.
	The point that I seek to get across with this new clause is that no big business started out as a big business; all big businesses started out as small businesses. I am greatly worried that many of our future potential big businesses are being strangled at birth by the Government, who place upon them burden after burden that might be easy for big companies to adopt but that are much more difficult for small businesses to adopt. The end result is not that such businesses employ men and women equally, but that they employ nobody because they are put out of business by excessive regulation.
	Let me cite as an example my former employer, Asda, which had more than 140,000 employees by the time I left. Regulations regarding employment and other matters are in many respects meat and drink to an organisation such as Asda, which employs people to deal with and implement them. When so many people work in one place, it is easy to accommodate someone who needs flexible working. I do not worry about big businesses like Asda or Tesco-and my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) mentioned the latter earlier-because, good employers though they are, they are big enough look after themselves to a large extent. My worry about this new clause has to do with what we are doing to help smaller businesses that are just starting out and taking a big risk. We want to encourage them to employ people, but I fear that implementing the provisions of this Bill in full and as they stand will cause more and more employers to do as much as they can not to take on employees. That is because they will be petrified of all the legal implications, requirements, tribunals and so on. It seems perverse to introduce legislation that will do more to deter people from employing staff than it will to encourage them to do so.

Rob Marris: As a successor to Enoch Powell as Member of Parliament for Wolverhampton, South-West, I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is really content that new clause 36 would mean that a company with 249 employees would be permitted to discriminate racially against those employees? That would be the effect of the new clause, and I find it outrageous.

Philip Davies: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, which I appreciate, but I think he will accept that that is not the purpose of my new clause. As I said when I started, any successful business in this day and age will do what the Bill proposes anyway. Some of the things that went on in the past were completely unacceptable, and no one would argue otherwise. However, we are in a totally different place these days, and many of the measures in the Bill are superfluous to requirements.
	As ever, we need to strike the right balance. The purpose of the Bill is to ensure that no employer discriminates against a person based on mindless racism: equally, however, I hope that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) would not want many small businesses to fail and close down as a result of some of the things that might be unintended consequences of this Bill.

Diane Abbott: The whole House shares the hon. Gentleman's concern that small businesses should not be overburdened by regulation as, in their totality, they are major employers. However, when he says that racial discrimination in employment is in some sense a thing of the past, is he certain that it no longer happens in places of work? I think that the good people of Yorkshire would be surprised to hear that.

Philip Davies: It may or may not still happen. The hon. Lady may have different experiences from me, and I shall not gainsay her opinion. However, the purpose of the new clause is to flag up the fact that, if this House continues to pile regulation after regulation on to businesses of whatever size, the outcome will not be more fair employment but less employment across the board, for everybody. I absolutely accept her belief in racial equality and applaud her work on that over many years, but my fear is that with the Bill's emphasis on positive action and so on, we will end up with discrimination working in reverse.
	Many hon. Members seem to think that because ethnic minorities and women have been discriminated against in the past, the solution must be to discriminate in favour of them in the future. I do not believe that that is the solution to the problem of discrimination: I believe that we must solve the problem of discrimination by ending discrimination, as I shall explain.

Rob Marris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Philip Davies: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but no. I am sure he will want to intervene about other things in my speech, and I shall try to be as generous as possible, but I am mindful of the time and the other amendments that need to be debated.
	That brings me on nicely to my new clause 38, which would make it
	"unlawful for a public authority to promote or engage in any form of affirmative or positive action, as defined in subsection (4), when recruiting employees and making appointments."
	Given what the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) has just said, I presume that she will support this new clause. I know that she believes passionately in equality, and racial equality, and that all jobs should be given on merit, irrespective of race, gender or sexuality. That is why I presume that she will be happy to support new clause 38, which in effect would enshrine that requirement in law. It would make it unlawful to look at people in terms of their colour, sexuality or gender. That would no longer be tolerated or allowed.
	Anyone who truly believes in equality must surely believe that people should be given jobs on merit, irrespective of their colour, gender, disability, nationality or religious belief. That is what my new clause 38 would achieve, and I should be interested to know how anyone in the House could have a problem with giving people jobs on merit.
	The only people who are racist or sexist or discriminatory in any of the senses that I have set out are those who see everything in terms of race or gender. Most people in this country do not see things in those terms-I certainly do not. When I was recruiting people, I could not care less about their background, race or gender; I just wanted the best person for the job, and my new clause would enshrine in law the requirement that people are given jobs on merit.

Sammy Wilson: The hon. Gentleman will know that positive discrimination of the sort that he mentions has been exercised-and on a huge scale-in Northern Ireland, where there is 50:50 recruitment into the police force. His proposal would safeguard people from discrimination, but sometimes people who get jobs feel that they have got them not on merit but because of positive discrimination. Does he agree that his new clause would protect them from that? Indeed, many Catholic recruits to the Police Service of Northern Ireland have said that they would rather have been chosen purely on merit and not as a result of positive discrimination based on law.

Philip Davies: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. He makes a powerful point, which is that an approach based on positive discrimination and positive action can build up resentment among other parts of the population that would not exist otherwise. The upshot is that that approach, rather than doing a great deal for race relations and helping equality for women, instead does the exact opposite because people no longer feel that jobs are given on merit. They feel that other people are getting a fairer lick of the sauce bottle, so they build up a resentment that otherwise would never exist.

Diane Abbott: I listened with interest to the concern expressed on the other side of the House for people with jobs or senior positions who might agonise in the dark watches of the night about whether they really got their posts on merit. Could it be that the hon. Gentleman is thinking about all the white, male old Etonians on the Tory Front Bench?

Philip Davies: I am sorry that I gave way to the hon. Lady. She usually makes a helpful and positive contribution to debates in the House, but I am afraid that she has let herself down on this occasion.
	The serious point that I wish to reiterate is that, if we in this House want equality legislation, we should enshrine it in law that all jobs and positions must be given on merit, irrespective of race, gender, sexual orientation or nationality. All that should be totally and utterly irrelevant: in my mind, only a Bill that does that can truly be called an equality Bill.

Mark Harper: My hon. Friend has referred to disability, but to give people who have a disability an equal chance to get a job on merit it is sometimes necessary for employers to take steps and make reasonable adjustments. In that way, a person with a disability can compete on a level playing field and get a job fairly. The problem with the way that my hon. Friend has framed his amendments and new clauses is that an employer who took steps to make those reasonable adjustments could well fall foul of the discrimination provisions. That is something that he needs to think about.

Philip Davies: I do not agree with my hon. Friend, which is a rare thing for me to say, because nothing in my new clause would stop anyone wanting to do those things if they so wished and if that helped them to recruit the best person for the job on merit. My new clause would encourage someone to go to those lengths, to recruit the best person for the job-that is certainly its purpose-and I am very surprised that any hon. Member is opposed to giving people jobs on merit, but that is a reflection of the way that political correctness has taken over the House, as well as many other parts of the country.
	I will move on to some of the other amendments, and I will try to spend a bit less time on some of them. My amendments 60 to 64 cover the ground about work of equal value and touch upon where the Solicitor-General started the debate about favouring minority groups when two people of equal ability apply for a job. My amendments would remove the provisions that allow for that. For me, this is absolute fantasy world. It is all very good in an academic university lecture theatre to talk about what will happen when two identical people apply for a job and about two people who do jobs of equal value, but I ask hon. Members where on earth those situations ever exist in the real world. I have recruited many people in my time. I have never yet even remotely come across a case where two people have exactly the same ability and are exactly the same. Unless the Government envisage lots of twins applying for the same jobs right across the country, this is a completely meaningless, pointless and academic argument.  [ Interruption. ] Does the hon. and learned Lady want to have a bash, or is she just chuntering?

Vera Baird: No; I was talking to the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) and saying that the hon. Gentleman's comments apparently support the stand that we take: people look not for a pair of twins with identical qualifications but for people in a category who are all equally suitable, and there is then some practical effect. So we are glad for the support.

Philip Davies: The hon. and learned Lady misses my point: it is the Bill that introduces such nonsense into the debate. Such circumstances never exist, and my fear lies in my cynicism about the Government's real motive. I suspect that they know full well that those cases never exist and that such nonsense sounds good in a university lecture theatre but that it will never happen. They want to introduce a chilling effect into employment. The outcome that they seek is for employers to want to avoid at all costs any possibility of being taken to an employment tribunal or having legal action taken against them. So they do not envisage two people of equal ability applying. For example, if a man is better qualified than a woman but perhaps by not a great deal, they want the employer to take on not the man but the woman. Such legislation has a chilling effect to try to stop employers doing the opposite, but those cases never exist; it is the kind of discussion that we tend to get among primary school children in the playground. Indeed, my six-year-old son has probably gone past that kind of debate. I am very disappointed that the Government want to enshrine such pointless nonsense in an Act of Parliament.

John Mason: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again, and I am happy to meet him in the Tea Room to talk about any of these issues. Does he accept that, in fact, such cases do not always involve two people who are equal and one of them is preferred to the other, but a woman, or perhaps a disabled person, who is better qualified and better able than the white male, or whoever, and who does not get the job? If we look at society, we see that there is clear discrimination, and we need to do something about it.

Philip Davies: Indeed, and I urge the hon. Gentleman to support new clause 38, which would ensure that people were selected on merit. That would do the job nicely. The incidents that I am talking about have nothing to do with that problem. I am talking about identifying people who are absolutely identical-they do not exist-and jobs that are deemed to be of equal worth.
	Who determines which jobs in a business are of equal worth? Surely, the only person who can determine whether or not two different jobs in a company have equal worth is the company itself. How on earth can the Government decide for an employer which jobs in a company are of equal worth? How can a tribunal or judge do so? The only people who can do so are the employers themselves, because of the difference that the jobs make to their companies. All these provisions are absolute nonsense. Either they are completely pointless, or they will have a terrible effect, so I would rather that they were not in the Bill at all. That is why my amendments would delete them.

Lynne Featherstone: The hon. Gentleman has gone on about the best person for the job, but does he agree with me-probably not-that the definition of what is best might make a difference to the employer? The word "best" has traditionally covered the skills that are male, but what is actually best might be completely different. Does he therefore agree that, if people are equally qualified, considering what is best could equalise the work force?

Philip Davies: The hon. Lady introduces into the debate the fact that what is best is a subjective matter. It therefore seems even more pointless to try to pass all these things to a tribunal and a court for a decision, because they are obviously subjective. Who is to say that her view is more relevant than someone else's or that the tribunal chairman's view is more relevant than the employer's. They are, by definition, subjective. So rather than my agreeing with her, she appears to be agreeing with me.
	Amendments 65, 66 and 67 deal with an interesting part of the Bill. In effect, the Government are saying on this equal jobs thing that if A can demonstrate that they are being treated less favourably than B, the terms for A must be changed to match B's terms. It is an interesting theory that, in effect, everything must be equalised upwards. If the Government and Labour Members are absolutely committed to equality, they should not care whether the terms are equalised upwards or downwards, so long as they are equal. So why on earth is it necessary to equalise upwards? Why will the Government not allow the terms to be equalised downwards? If we are talking about an equality Bill, that should be neither one thing nor the other to the Government.
	Some recent disputes with local authorities provide some evidence of why such an equalising measure is not in the Bill. Leeds council is a prime example, where the binmen have been on strike over pay for about 11 or 12 weeks. The reason why everyone is up in arms in certain local authorities-Sheffield is another one that suffered from this-is that, because of the single status thing, everyone in jobs with a predominance of certain genders had to be paid equally. That ended up with lots of people being paid less, so they all went on strike.
	It strikes me that, out there in the country, there is no great demand for equality; people just want to have their terms and conditions protected. I want the Government to have the courage of their convictions. If they believe that equality is the be-all and end-all of any legislation, let them put it in the Bill that people's conditions can be equalised downwards as well as upwards. I suspect that their commitment to equality will probably not go that far.
	I will rush through amendments 68 to 70, because they are minor matters. Amendment 68 would leave out clause 66(3), which states that
	"the long-term objective of reducing inequality between men's and women's terms of work is always to be regarded as a legitimate aim."
	I do not see that as something that should always be regarded as a legitimate aim, because it might inadvertently allow another practice to take place that people might find unacceptable. I do not necessarily see that as a legitimate aim, and I do not think the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone) does either, if she is honest about it. She did not accept that for part-time work, women are paid a higher hourly rate than men, but that is the case, as shown by figures from the Office for National Statistics.
	I know that the Government fiddle the figures from the Office for National Statistics and get into terrible trouble for so doing, but the facts are that the average pay for a woman part-time worker is £7.51 per hour and the corresponding average pay for a man is £7.26. I do not think that that is illegitimate, and there may be all sorts of reasons for it. A high proportion of the women who tend to do part-time work may have had a career beforehand and choose, because they have had a family or it suits their circumstances best, to go into work in which they have a lot of experience and expertise behind them. The men who tend to do part-time work are much younger-people who leave university or school and therefore have less experience. It is inevitable that part-time women workers will be paid more, on average, than part-time men workers. I do not see that as a bad thing. It reflects what the real world is like out there. We do not need clauses to stop that practice. That is wholly unnecessary.
	Amendment 69 deals with maternity pay and the requirement that women's pay when they return to work should be what it would have been if they had not been away at all. How on earth can anybody know what somebody would have been paid if they had not taken nine months or a year off? They might have got a promotion, if they had been there to apply for it. That is totally unenforceable, and I am not sure that it is particularly desirable.
	Amendment 70 relates to the discussions on pay among employees. The Bill would oblige employers to disclose what other people were paid. I do not know how many hon. Members in the Chamber have worked in big companies, or in small companies, for that matter. I can think of nothing more likely to cause friction in the workplace than everybody telling each other how much they are paid. People may be paid differently for all sorts of reasons. It may be nothing to do with their race, gender, sexuality or whatever. There may be other reasons why people are paid more or less. All I can say to the Government is that if they introduce that clause, there will be more fighting going on in workplaces around the country than we have ever seen, and the number of days on strike will probably go up massively.
	Clause 75 deals with the gender pay gap. As I said, I do not see it as a problem that part-time women workers are paid, on average, more than their male counterparts. I do not see why Members see that as a problem and I look forward to hearing from the Minister why she is wholly opposed to part-time women workers earning, on average, more than part-time men workers.
	The question arises whether it will be possible to implement these measures. The Equality and Human Rights Commission exists to lecture everybody else, as the Minister said, and if she has her way, to take recalcitrant employers to court over the gender pay gap and other such matters. I shall be charitable. I do not think the Equality and Human Rights Commission is a particularly nasty body, or that it sets out to discriminate against ethnic minorities, women or disabled people. Perhaps it does. If someone holds that view, let them stand up and explain why they believe that.
	However, even the Equality and Human Rights Commission pays its male staff, on average, more than its female staff. It pays its white employees more than their ethnic minority colleagues, and its non-disabled staff more than its staff with disabilities. If even the EHRC cannot meet the Government's aims, how can they expect it to go round the country lecturing everybody else on how to do it? It is utter nonsense.

Sammy Wilson: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. That seems to be a trait among the equality industry right across the United Kingdom. Is he aware, for example, that in Northern Ireland the Equality Commission, which has come down very hard on employers where there is an imbalance between those who come from the Catholic community and those who come from the Protestant community, has gross inequality in its employment practices, employing many more Catholics than Protestants, and justifying that as well?

Philip Davies: I take on board the hon. Gentleman's point. The information about the Equality and Human Rights Commission is published. Every year I ask what the pay gap is. When I asked the question recently, it emerged that on race and on disability the pay gap at the EHRC is considerably worse this year than it was last year, so it is not as though the EHRC is getting there gradually-it is going backwards. This is public information. Publishing the information does not make everything hunky-dory. I fear that much of the Bill is motherhood and apple pie, enabling people to feel good about themselves, but it is a fantasy world, not the real world.
	Amendments 75 to 78 are minor amendments. Amendment 75 would exempt the armed forces from the provisions of certain parts of the Bill. The purpose of amendments 76 and 77 is to question why the Government are so keen to see proceedings move from courts to tribunals. My fear is that the Government feel that it will be easier for people to take discrimination cases to tribunals than to courts. They are trying to throw as many cases as possible before tribunals to get the outcome that they want.
	Amendment 93 covers positive action. I have spoken at length about why I believe positive discrimination and positive action are bad. The final five amendments of mine in the present group relate initially to pensions. Amendment 127 refers to schedule 9, which contains lists of categories-religious group exemptions, it seems to me-to which certain provisions would not apply. One such case envisages a requirement not to be married in order to qualify for a particular job. My amendment adds to that a requirement to be married. If, in some cases, it is fine that not being married is a requirement, by definition it should be fine that in some cases there is a requirement to be married.
	My last two amendments are important. Many people in the country are concerned about age discrimination. The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green said at the outset that she did not agree with any of my amendments. I look forward to her telling the House why she is against these amendments. The Bill allows employers to force people to retire at the age of 65. My amendment would delete that requirement and would not allow employers to retire people forcibly when they reach the age of 65.
	I am interested not only in the hon. Lady's position on this, but in the Minister's position. If she truly believes in equality, why does she think it is fine that somebody is doing a perfectly good job aged 64 and 364 days, but the next day, when that person is doing an equally good job, the employer should get rid of them by forcing them to retire?
	I should have thought that age discrimination was an important topic to cover, so, if the Bill is about equality and about trying to get rid of different forms of discrimination, why does the Solicitor-General think it fine to force people to retire aged 65? They are presumably just as good at their job on the day that they turn 65 as they were on the day before that. That is where the Government get into problems with such Bills. They have a hierarchy of equality: some protected characteristics, as they call them, are more important than others. That flies in the face of what an equality Bill should be about, so, if the Government believe in equality, let them bring forward a Bill that delivers on equality.
	I have a problem with the Bill before us, and my amendments are important because, through them, I am trying to deliver a Bill that offers true equality, whereby people are given jobs on merit and are not just fired for the sake of their age. If the Government want to show that they truly believe in equality, they will incorporate those proposals.

Lynne Featherstone: The hon. Gentleman has caught me out. That is one of his amendments with which I do, sadly, agree. Age discrimination, which we discussed at other stages of the Bill, is not appropriate, and the existing provision is an oddity in the Bill.

Philip Davies: A rare triumph! I have actually got a Member-a Liberal Democrat Member, I might add-to agree with me on a matter relating to the Equality Bill. I can leave this Chamber a happy man. Whatever else happens throughout the course of today, I shall be able to go to bed tonight, lie there, smile and think, "I've actually had a rare triumph." It is a red-letter day for me, and on that basis I will quit while I am ahead.

Gwyn Prosser: I shall speak to new clause 25 and amendment 34 in my name. Both are proposed changes that seek to remove the terrible discrimination against non-UK seamen sailing on British ships between British ports.
	New clause 25 would apply the national minimum wage to seafarers who are either ordinarily resident in the UK and sailing on British-registered ships, or sailing on ships that trade solely between UK ports or offshore installations-a very narrow definition. It could be argued-indeed, it has been in this House and in the other place-that the minimum wage should apply to all seafarers on all UK vessels when they are trading in UK territorial waters. That seems to me, to the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, to Nautilus International, of which I am still a member, and to the TUC to be a very reasonable way of removing the inequalities in current legislation and putting an end to the shameful exploitation of non-UK seafarers on British ships.
	Unfortunately, Ministers in both Houses have resisted such reform for a series of reasons. Although I and supporters of the reform do not consider those reasons to be valid, we have none the less taken heed of them and narrowed our new clause substantially. New clause 25 is therefore very narrowly scripted as a means of making some progress, because under current law some ship operators are getting away with murder. We have evidence of pay rates, conditions of service and hours of duty that have been described as "modern-day slavery".
	There are countless examples of poverty pay on British ships trading between British ports. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) gave two examples, but there are many more. For instance, Streamline, operating from Aberdeen to Lerwick, pays just £314 a month-one third of the national minimum wage equivalent; Varun shipping company, which sails out of Aberdeen and from Peterhead to the offshore oil industry, pays workers as little as £262 a month. Some Filipino seamen are paid just over £2 an hour; Estonian able seamen-qualified able seamen-on the regular Heysham to Belfast service are on just £433 a month; and the list goes on. It is not restricted to a couple of examples; it is wide-ranging and getting worse. Sadly, there are many other shameful examples, and that cannot be right, which is why the unions have been pressing for reform for so long.
	The remaining arguments against extending the national minimum wage in the circumstances described in new clause 25 are becoming fewer and entirely predictable. The Chamber of Shipping argues that some operators might flag out of the British flag, but that is the sort of blackmail that big business and employers adopted during the introduction of the minimum wage in the first place. Whenever workers' rights are improved, big business, the CBI and the official Opposition come forward with all sorts of nightmare scenarios for a particular case. We know from the national minimum wage negotiations, and from the fact that we are now 10 years on from them, that none of those dire predictions came true; in fact, most changes went in the opposite direction to those that were forecast.

John McDonnell: Will my hon. Friend remind the House that when the Government became the Administration in 1997, we introduced the tonnage tax to support such companies? Between £80 million to £100 million has been given to them in total, and the quid pro quo was that they would promote British seafaring employment, but that has not occurred.

Gwyn Prosser: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Since Labour introduced the tonnage tax, the volume of traffic under the British flag has trebled-a massive change. When we introduced the tax, the British flag register was so small that many people, the industry and the Chamber of Shipping included, thought that it would disintegrate, and that the flag would no longer be credible. During the original negotiations, promises and assurances were made that the increase in the British flag registry would be reflected in more training and more jobs for British workers, but that never happened, and that is wrong. In fact, we are meeting the Prime Minister shortly to pursue the matter.
	Going by the many meetings that we have had with Ministers and officials over the past eight years, I get the feeling that they are starting to agree with our sentiments on equality. They understand the principles behind reforming the law and making things fairer, and their only defence is that the changes conflict with the international law of the sea. I hope that the Solicitor-General will comment on that point when she responds.
	We are told that Foreign and Commonwealth Office lawyers say that, in their opinion, applying the minimum wage as described would infringe the law of the sea and the rights of innocent passage. Indeed, that has been the Government's view since we started pressing for these reforms-a long time ago. In the final paragraph of a letter dated 9 November that the RMT and I received recently, my very good friend, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Paul Clark) wrote that
	"the Government's interpretation of the law...is legally sound. Therefore, it is with regret that we cannot consider this matter further. I understand that this will be a disappointment to you but I know you understand the importance of adhering to international law."
	Well, we were disappointed, not least for the reasons that my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington outlined a few moments ago, and for the fact that our legal advice indicates that new clause 25 would not, contrary to what has been said, infringe the international law of the sea. So far, we have been denied sight of the Foreign Office's legal advice, and we look forward to seeing it sometime.
	I am not a lawyer or trained in the law, but I have spent many years at sea, and my lay understanding of innocent passage has always been that vessels should be allowed to sail on the high seas and in other countries' territorial waters without the threat of being stopped, boarded, searched or impounded. It is hard to relate those important and widespread protections to the narrow issues in new clause 25 and the application of the national minimum wage. These inequalities have persisted for far too long, and they cry out to be part of this important Bill. Without a far more positive response from those on the Front Bench, I intend to press the new clause to a vote when the opportunity arises.

John McDonnell: Apart from the fact that the Government seem to be isolated in this interpretation of the law, I remind my hon. Friend that in numerous debates in this Chamber he has cited the concept that the other pieces of legislation that we have enacted-on health and safety, criminal law and so on-do apply to ships that pass through British waters. Why, therefore, does this legislative proposal, exceptionally, not apply?

Gwyn Prosser: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. A third fairly recent example is that of the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007, which specifically covers all sorts of contingencies in home waters and, indeed, in waters overseas. There are ways of providing these reforms without conflicting with or infringing international law.
	Amendment 34 is also to do with giving better rights to non-UK seafarers. It relates to the Race Relations Act 1976, which exempted seafarers from all the good things that it introduced. In the past 48 hours, we have had the publication of the regulations that we are told will be attached to the Bill. We have been asking for- shouting for, perhaps even demanding-those regulations, not for many months, but for many years. They are a step forward; they show some sort of progress. We have had private assurances from the Minister on their likely future progress, and we have been assured that they will remove at least the worst elements of discrimination and pay differentiation on vessels sailing in British waters. We look forward to hearing more about how that will be taken forward.

John McDonnell: I want to ensure that the House is fully clear about just how far we have compromised on this matter. Under the proposals that the Government put forward for consultation, there is still a prospect that there will be differential rates of pay with regard to nationals of any EC or European economic area state. The Philippines is excluded from the list of countries in the proposals, so Filipino workers could still be discriminated against in terms of race. The proposals still include this phrase,
	"the difference in rates would correspond to a difference in the costs of living in the places where the seafarers respectively habitually reside."
	In other words, we have compromised even to the point where there will still be groups of people out there working on ships who are paid at the rate of their country of origin. We tried to reach a compromise with the Government whereby at least the bulk of them would be paid a fair rate for the job.

Gwyn Prosser: Again, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. In my view, the Government have moved the minimum amount that they were forced to move in order to comply with European Union law. That means that they have left out all sorts of other categories of workers of other nationalities who are being exploited today and will be exploited in future. We look forward to receiving responses from Ministers that are, I hope, a bit more reassuring than what we have had in the past.

Katy Clark: First, I want to put on record my support for the Bill, which is a landmark piece of legislation that will help hundreds of thousands of people in the years to come.
	I want to speak to new clause 33, which I have tabled and would like to put to the vote at the appropriate time. I noted the comments of the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone). It is important that this House debates and divides on the issue of mandatory pay audits, and I believe that my new clause would be the appropriate one to vote on given that it proposes a lower threshold of 21 employees in the workplace. I will come to that at a later stage in my speech, which I will try to keep relatively brief given the time constraints on the House.
	The Equal Pay Act 1970 came into effect in 1975. There has been considerable movement in relation to men's and women's pay since then, but it has been very slow and it has been a struggle. As a result of the equal pay legislation, thousands of women have gone to employment tribunals with equal value and equal pay cases. Those cases have been very difficult to take forward; in many cases, it has taken many years. I was involved in a piece of mass litigation on equal value in the national health service that took eight years, and I know of a case involving women speech therapists-a landmark case-that took 13 years to resolve. At the end of those lengthy periods, the women concerned did not get the full value of compensation that they would have achieved had they won at the employment tribunal. Because they knew that they were going to have to wait for many more years before they got to that stage of the proceedings, they decided to take a proportion of the compensation that they would have been successful in obtaining had the case gone through the whole process. Too many of those involved had retired or died, or their circumstances had otherwise changed, and they took the view that they had to take compensation at that stage instead of pursuing the matter to the bitter end.
	Equal pay and equal value cases take such a huge amount of time because of the difficulty of taking them through the tribunal and the wide range of technical defences that are available to employers. Cases of this nature place a huge burden on the women who bring them; being the focus of such a case is a very pressurised experience. I therefore support new clause 4 on representative actions. We need to look at the ways that other countries have dealt with these problems. It is clear that taking class actions, or representative actions, is a way of ensuring not only that the onus is not on one individual at the tribunal but that more people benefit when they win.
	I also support the amendment on hypothetical comparators. That factor applies in many other countries and there have been many employment tribunal decisions about it. I think that it is already lawful in this country, but putting it on to a statutory footing would help to underpin it.

Diane Abbott: Does my hon. Friend agree that class actions have proved very effective in places such as America? By their very nature, people bringing class actions will be the lowest paid, often the most junior and marginal members of an organisation, and it is asking too much of them, as individuals, to take action one by one.

Katy Clark: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is women workers such as cleaners, catering assistants and shop assistants who are taking these types of actions, and they are simply not equipped to take on such litigation. That is why trade unions often fund these cases, which are very expensive.

John McDonnell: I agree. However, it is not only a case of not being equipped-there is also retaliatory action. We have just discovered, through the Information Commissioner, that 3,000 workers have been blacklisted by employers, mostly because they have taken actions against employers.

Katy Clark: Indeed, and I understand that regulations were published today on that issue. I have not had the opportunity to examine them, but I understand that the 3,000 people involved will not really get any justice or compensation for the discrimination against them. We know from our history that those who stand up, take action and fight are victimised. That is why many of us have fought for many years to bring in anti-victimisation legislation-so that people can take up such cases. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) that class actions are one of the most effective ways to do that.
	We still have a huge problem with equal pay in this country. We have had quite a bit of banter about statistics, but it is clear that since 1975, when the 1970 Act came into effect, the trend has been in the right direction in the sense that the gap between men's and women's earnings has narrowed. That has not been a constant trend, and there have been years when it has increased. In the last year for which we have statistics, 2008-09, the gap got smaller, but in the year before that it widened.
	We have heard a lot about the figures, and we know that the pay gap for full-time employees is somewhere between 12 and 13 per cent. For all employees it is more like 22 per cent. As has been pointed out, different information becomes clear depending on how we look at the statistics. Far more women work part time, including those who are well qualified and had well-paid employment before having children and then deciding to go back to work on a part-time basis. It is clear from the extensive research that such women are paid a lower hourly rate than men undertaking similar work of like value. There is huge discrimination against part-time workers, particularly women.
	It is also clear from the work that has been done that there are huge regional variations in discrimination against women and in the gender gap. The Fawcett Society has shown that the gender gap is 53 per cent. in west Somerset and 49 per cent. in Windsor and Maidenhead, but in Sevenoaks and Kent it is 1 per cent. Similarly, when we look at some employers, we find that women are paid more than men on average because of the types of jobs that are done. One can do all sorts of things with statistics, but the general picture that there is still discrimination against women cannot be argued against.
	One of my concerns is our failure to make such speedy progress as comparable countries. The international comparisons show that Britain is moving down the scale and our situation is getting worse. Of the 130 countries that are part of the World Economic Forum's global gender gap index, Britain was ninth in 2006. Last year we had fallen to 13th, and now we are ranked 15th, so it is clear that other countries are addressing the problem better. We must examine what they are doing and consider how they are achieving that. I agree with my hon. Friends that representative and class actions are part of that, but so are mandatory equal pay audits. What has happened in other countries makes it clear that that form of transparency works. In Sweden, where such audits were introduced in 1991, the pay gap is now only 3 per cent., and they have also worked in other countries where similar action has been taken. It is shameful that the business lobby has succeeded in persuading the Government not to take a mandatory approach.

Diane Abbott: We are in an era of declining levels of trade union organisation of the work force, which makes mandatory pay audits even more important.

Katy Clark: I agree. We know that in spheres of employment in which there is a high level of trade union organisation, the level of discrimination is far lower, not just on equal pay but on a whole raft of matters, most importantly health and safety. There are people ensuring that the laws passed in this place are implemented in the workplace. Unfortunately from our perspective, the public sector is now the sphere in which the trade unions are best organised, and over a lengthy period the level of trade union organisation in the private sector has diminished.
	Since 1997, the Government have attempted relatively successfully to address some of the problems in the public sector. Although Labour brought in the equal pay legislation in the 1970s, in many ways it was not implemented as it should have been because of the difficulty for individual women of taking equal pay cases. That problem was taken on board, and the attempts to bring in job evaluation and examine pay scales have succeeded in addressing many difficulties. However, one problem that has been mentioned is that insufficient funds have been provided to address historical discrimination, and bin men are being asked to take a salary cut so that a catering assistant or cleaner can get their salary increase. That is not the way to deal with discrimination. The only way to address the problem would have been to bring everybody up to the same level over a long period rather than level down, which would have required greater funding.

Jeremy Corbyn: I am pleased that my hon. Friend has mentioned refuse collectors, probably in the light of the strike in Leeds. Apparently, some people there have been expected to take a pay cut. Does she agree that it will require greater expenditure by local authorities to maintain male earnings and bring female earnings up to the same level, and that that should be recognised in the standard spending assessment for local government next year?

Katy Clark: There is indeed a problem in Leeds, and also in my constituency, where refuse workers are being asked to take pay cuts. I suspect that it is a live issue in many parts of the country. The problem was not created in 1997-it goes back decades, and our failure to address it over a lengthy period makes it more difficult and expensive to do so now. I agree with my hon. Friend that it has to be taken on board when considering local government finance.

John Mason: I agree with the hon. Lady that we should be pulling people's pay up rather than down, but that creates the knock-on effect that it is harder for a council providing a service to compete with the private sector, which may underpay workers, often women, for the same thing. We need to address that, too.

Katy Clark: Yes, that is a massive problem for local government and throughout the national health service and all parts of the public sector. As I said, at least there has been an attempt to grapple with the problems since 1997, with all their complexities and difficulties. Unfortunately, that cannot be said to the same extent of the private sector, in which about 80 per cent. of employees work. Gender discrimination is an even more difficult problem in that sector, and it is even more difficult to bring equal value cases because of the lack of transparency.
	When I took equal value cases in the health service, we knew what a cleaner was paid, and we also knew what the wall washer, who was a man, was being paid. He was paid more, even though he was washing the wall and the women were washing the floor. We were therefore able to put a case together. That is not the situation in the private sector, because there is no transparency and different people doing the same job are on very different terms and conditions of employment. That makes it even more difficult to achieve any kind of equality, because people do not know what is going on round about them. They get information accidentally and anecdotally, and it may or may not be correct. They could therefore be well into an equal value case before they knew what the ball game is and what they were being paid in comparison with others.
	I welcome clause 75, which opens the way for a more mandatory approach in that it gives Ministers a power to make regulations to require employers with 250 or more employees to publish information. However, a voluntary approach has not worked over the past 40 years, so I find it difficult to believe that there is going to be significant movement in the next four years, in which time the Government say they hope there will be an improvement in the situation. They have said that they do not intend to use the power until 2013, and I hope they will revisit that mandatory aspect.
	The figure of 250 employees will simply exclude considerable numbers of people who could benefit from the Bill, so I welcome new clause 3, which was tabled a considerable time ago by the Liberal Democrats. It would be a significant improvement, but my concern is that it would still exclude many people who could be helped by this legislation. As I understand it, the measure was drafted in line with the equal pay task force recommendations, which were published in 2001. That authoritative report, which was commissioned by the Equal Opportunities Commission, has already been quoted in our debate.
	The reality, however, is that even if new clause 33, which would introduce a threshold of 21 employees, were successful, 32 per cent. of women would be excluded, because they are employed in organisations with 20 or fewer employees. Only 68 per cent. of women and a slightly higher number of men would be in organisations that had to make such information available.
	The figure of 21 employees was chosen simply because it fits in with the Government's approach to other legislation, such as trade union recognition, and not for any other reason. There is a very strong argument that there should be no threshold at all, because this form of transparency is easier the smaller the organisation. However, we took the view that some people would feel able to support a threshold in the region of 21, but would not support no threshold whatever.
	I believe that mandatory pay auditing legislation would help significant numbers of men and women in this country-of course, not only women take equal pay cases, but men too, and they do so successfully. However, the vast majority of people who are discriminated against in their pay on the ground of gender tend to be women, so women will be the major benefactors of successful legislation.
	This is an important issue for our party in government, and I very much hope that the Government will feel able to look at it again. They will be very well aware that many Labour MPs are very sympathetic and supportive of proposed new clause 33, as I suspect are many Ministers who have been involved in the Bill.

Lynne Featherstone: Does the hon. Lady agree that if we do not get such a measure in this Bill and should there be a change of Government, we may never get one?

Katy Clark: I do not believe that there is going to be a change of Government, so if we do not get such a measure in the Bill, I will be back here fighting next time round. It is a general rule that we need such measures now. The longer we delay, the less we can be sure what is going to happen in future. If this Government felt able to go down the line of mandatory equal pay audits, it would be a huge advance and a significant achievement. If we do not go down that line, I suspect that we will be back here in four years' time to have this debate again, after the voluntary approach has yet again proved unsuccessful. I hope that we will today achieve a significant step forward, particularly for women, and that we will get one of the proposals for mandatory equal pay audits passed.

Vera Baird: I congratulate all the contributors, not excepting the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), on the vigour with which they expressed their views. I will respond not in the order in which people have spoken, which would not be possible, but in the order of the proposals, as best I can.
	New clauses 3, 26 and 33 are on one of the topics that my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Ms Clark) spoke about. They are the successors to the proposals on mandatory pay audits that were extensively debated in Committee. It is true that there was a very full debate indeed in Committee, setting out where the divisions lay. However, I must say that in my view, there is a danger of a sort of inadvertent sloganising. What is the significant difference between a mandatory pay audit and what it would disclose, and requiring, as we will immediately of the public sector and ultimately of the private sector if it does not comply, the disclosure of information from which the pay gap in a firm can be seen, so that pressure can be applied to narrow it?
	If mandatory pay audits, which are pursued by two of the proposals, are going to be the same as those that have failed to work in a number of areas, we are unsurprisingly not going to support them. The kind of consultant-based mandatory pay audit that has been prevalent is often sexist in its conclusions and has had to be fought. Local authorities that have tried rigorously, with the best will in the world, since 1997 and the single status agreement, to have what amount to mandatory pay audits, have in very large measure, as everybody agrees, landed themselves in employment tribunals because the management of the audits has not been transparent and has therefore produced sex discrimination of its own kind. The audits are quite difficult to get right and can be an enormous burden. For instance, in Sweden, which has had mandatory pay audits for some time, there is simply no evidence that they have worked effectively at all. We are looking to get away from the term "mandatory pay audits" if what it means is what I have just described, and to arrive at a practical solution that will advance the equality of women's pay, which has been unfairly different from that of men for far, far, far too long.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran talked about transparency, and that is the name of the game. She complained that in the private sector she was not able to learn about pay differentials, but there will be no place for the private sector to hide on pay differentials in the future. Secrecy clauses will be banned under this Bill, and we will require that immediately-it is not a case of waiting until 2013 to ask the private sector to publish its pay figures. I will come later to the most up-to-date information that I have about the work that is being done, which is being thoroughly supported by the CBI and other employers, with the EHRC and the TUC, to try to work out the optimum measurements that will disclose pay structures effectively without imposing an unfair and unnecessary burden. However, the whole negotiation has been on the basis that pay transparency is agreed to be the most important factor. The issue is what measurements will be needed to disclose those structures. The issue of burden is much further back. However, we are seeking the optimal solution so that clarity may be obtained and action taken on the basis of what is disclosed.
	I asked a rhetorical question about the difference between a mandatory pay audit and disclosing enough information so that people can discover what is going wrong with pay scales and put that right. That goes beyond direct discrimination. The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) does not understand that figures will disclose not just deliberate discrimination, but inadvertent discrimination, historic ghettoisation and many other factors.
	I suppose that the answer to the rhetorical question is the mandatory element. The issue is whether we continue as we have been doing, as the realisation is emerging that equality, diversity and good business go together and are not the enemies of each other. Should we encourage that to flourish-and observe participation in that-or should we say, "Hey, businesses, you're all under arrest and you must all do mandatory pay audits", even though such audits have not made a significant difference in those countries where they have been tried? The Government's position should not be construed as demonstrating the slightest lack of political will, determination or certainty that we will advance the cause of equal pay, and quickly. I am confident that it will go up 10 gears when the legislation comes into force.

Katy Clark: My key point was my concern about the lack of enforcement and the fact that a voluntary scheme is being proposed, rather than a compulsory scheme. The Minister's points are about the detail of the information that should be provided. Experience has shown that unless such schemes are made compulsory, people do not co-operate. We do not have time to wait another four years. In the public sector, that would mean another four years of equal pay cases-as it would in the private sector. Surely we have waited long enough, and the scheme should be compulsory.

Vera Baird: There will be compulsion in the public sector, and that will start the day this legislation comes into force. In the private sector, we have seen a new understanding emerge that prosperity in business goes hand in hand with equality and diversity-and we are keen to encourage that. It is not just a question of waiting for something to happen. That is why, even before the Bill becomes law, the commission is working to produce, within a matter of weeks, the measurements that it will ask the private sector to implement. Those measurements have been arrived at-or almost arrived at, as they are not quite ready-with the full buy-in of the major employers' organisations. I have met the representative of the CBI-she and I almost have a mobile road show going, together with someone from the TUC-many times on this issue, and she asserts voluntarily, without being pressed into doing so by me, that she intends to drive through compliance with these measures by her employers. If we can harness that power from both sides, it will be much better than engendering conflict by introducing a mandatory scheme that has not worked elsewhere.

John Penrose: I have seen announcements from the EHRC saying that it would not be able to publish some of the details of the proposed measurements until 2012 or 2013, but the Minister has just said that they will be published in the next few weeks. If that is true, it is tremendously welcome and very good news. Can she confirm that those earlier press announcements were misinformed and that the details are due soon?

Vera Baird: Yes, I think that there was some muddle there. I will say a bit more later, but I can confirm now that they are due much sooner than that.
	I want to make it clear that we consider our approach to be the right way forward. As I have done in the past, I commend and cheer on my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran. She has a fantastic record in her private history of chasing the issue of equal pay, and she has had incredible success. She is obviously highly skilled as well as incredibly committed, and I make no mistake in saying that she speaks with feeling and a high level of knowledge. However, in the past, she has had difficulties-I am well aware of the laboriousness of such legislation and litigation. Over the years she has been contending with this matter, there has been neither the obligation for transparency in the public sector nor the pressure that there will be for transparency in the private sector. To progress very quickly, we need the buy-in of both sides of industry if possible.
	I could rehearse more of the arguments made in Committee, but they have been adequately heard and what I have said summarises them reasonably well. I am anxious to satisfy all parties on our absolute determination that the Bill will, among many, many other things, accelerate the move towards equal pay for women.
	New clause 26, tabled by the Conservative party, would require a more specific position, which is that employment tribunals should order mandatory equal pay audits whenever an equal pay case is lost by an employer. That was presented in a three-clause Bill in the Lords-it was one of the clauses-but was taken apart by Lord Lester, who is not a member of the Labour party but who did a skilful demolition job none the less. The new clause is tokenism and would make little difference to tackling the gender pay gap, not least because its effectiveness depends on a case being won in an employment tribunal.
	Let us look at the employment tribunals. In 2008-09, there were more than 100,000 public sector cases, almost all of which-I cannot say all-involved bodies that had already undertaken equal pay audits under the single status requirement, which has been battling on since 1997. Often the results of equal pay audits are the very reason cases are brought. It would not be sensible for it to be compulsory for a tribunal, in trying to unpick the aftermath of a pay audit, and to ensure that it works and drives the move towards equal pay, to have to order another one. That is the long and short of how nonsensical the proposal is.
	Few private or voluntary sector organisations reach an employment tribunal. In 2008-09, when there were 100,000 public sector cases, there were 1,574 non-public sector cases. There is much to be said about such a small number and the need for things such as representative actions, and I shall come to that in a minute because it makes my point while requiring me to make another one about representative actions. However, the new clause is completely undesirable because it would remove any discretion for employment tribunals, which would have to order equal pay audits-that is not what judges are for-in circumstances where they consider them wrong, unnecessary or inappropriate.
	Conceivably, there could be instances of individual cases that do not reflect systemic equal pay problems. One wrong move by a business and a tribunal might have no other option than to order a mandatory equal pay audit across that business, however big it might be. If an employer is found to have breached equal pay law, it should, as a matter of common sense and good management, want to assess what changes it needs to make to avoid further claims, and it will. We oppose the new clause, therefore, and think that it is just a token gesture.
	Let me turn to new clause 4, which is about representative actions and which was also supported, strongly, wholeheartedly and with great power, by the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran. As I have said throughout, our mind is not closed to the future of representative actions at all. Taking full-time and part-time pay together-that is how we must take them, otherwise we will be putting part-time workers into a less virtuous category-there is a 22 per cent. pay gap, and that simply will not do.
	We understand totally that unequal pay is often systemic. As I have said, there can be isolated cases, but it is often systemic. Sometimes unequal pay is deliberate, but often it is just there and it needs rooting out by transparency. However, that needs to be driven not by some poor isolated individual who has been required to put their whole future and the money at stake and who is sometimes required to summon up the courage to go forward. Rather, we need support for people and better access to justice. We are in no doubt that we must look to do just that.
	However, representative actions in the area of law covered by the Bill have some particular difficulties. We recently carried out research into how representative actions would work for equal pay cases and into the complexities, which are as follows-my hon. Friend is not in her place now, but she will follow them when she reads this. Before I itemise the problems, let me say that there are polarised views on the effectiveness of representative actions. Indeed, not even all the trade unions that are active in equal pay matters-the trade unions from which representatives would be drawn-are at one about how effective the introduction of such measures would be.
	There is a strong school of thought that says that what my hon. Friend talked about-the ability under the current rules to draw out a class action and use it as a testing ground and model-can be beefed up by changes to the rules. Indeed, that approach is already in use and effective. There might be other ways forward; my point is simply that there is no unanimity even among the people who would be the representatives and from whom one would expect the drive to come.
	However, the problems include the extent to which costs should be borne by the losing parties in tribunal cases, which they do not currently; how such cases should be funded; whether claimants in such cases should have to opt in to a representative action or whether they should be assumed to be a part of it unless they opt out; how to resolve a dispute between an individual claimant and the representative party; how damages should be awarded; and how they should be distributed to a successful class of claimants.
	There are a lot more issues to work through with regard to employment tribunals than with regard to the civil courts. Representative actions are permitted in a limited way in the civil courts, so when representative actions are introduced for consumer and financial services cases, for example, we are building on a legal framework. However, there is absolutely no similar mechanism for employment tribunals, so introducing it for such cases would be a departure.
	A further point to make about the complexity is that discrimination cases are often linked to other kinds of cases, such as unfair dismissal cases. We need to consider whether it is sensible just to introduce representative actions for discrimination cases or whether that overlap will cause greater confusion and delay. The Ministry of Justice is doing further work with the Civil Procedure Rule Committee and is trying to develop a toolkit, so that Departments can look at the issues and decide, Department by Department, whether it would be good for access to justice in their areas.
	We recognise that pay discrimination is systemic. We recognise too that there are situations where a number of individuals will want to bring broadly similar claims against a single party. We know that introducing representative actions could bring benefits for individuals, and potentially also for defendants faced with multiple claims. We will look at the issue, and we may well consult in due course. In the meantime, on the understanding that we are researching the issue as far as we can, I invite hon. Members not to press new clause 4.
	As for hypothetical comparators, I think that there has been a slight mix-up on the clause numbering, as clause 64 is now the relevant one, although that does not particularly matter. The clauses reflect our decision to keep the distinction between contractual and non-contractual pay matters for work-related gender discrimination, which means that someone has to identify a comparator of the opposite sex to make an equal pay claim. That has to be a real person.
	We are firmly of the view that accepting new clause 5 would lead to difficult consequences, some of them probably not only unintended but unforeseen. We are obviously determined to expose and address unequal pay; I hope that that can be taken as read. The way to do that, however, is not to increase confusion about how comparisons can be made, but to increase transparency. The tribunal would be asked to conclude from the fact that there is a difference in pay between two people doing work that is not of the same value, that that somehow indicates that two such people doing the same work would be paid differently. In the absence of evidence of direct discrimination, for which we have made new provision in clause 68, we do not see how that conclusion can be reached. Clause 68 does, however, allow claims where there is evidence of direct discrimination in relation to contractual pay, so that is a little gap that we have filled, moving in the direction of the amending provisions.
	There are contrary views on this issue: most of the respondents to our Green Paper supported our position that we should keep the current approach, although the Fawcett Society and the Women's National Commission did not agree. The consequences of allowing a hypothetical comparator could include, for instance, enabling a man in a lower-paid job to seek to equalise his pay with that of another man in a higher-paid job that he asserts is of equal value. A male care assistant could cite a hypothetical female refuse collector as a comparator of work of equal value in order to bring his wages up to the same level as refuse collectors who are male. That is not what the equal pay provisions are for, as they are intended to tackle discrimination between men and women rather than be a mechanism for fair pay-there are different mechanisms for that. Permitting reliance on a hypothetical comparator would encourage that sort of claim and might well bog down tribunals even more; it would take the legislation way out of the territory that it is intended to cover.

David Howarth: The theoretical possibility that the hon. and learned Lady just mentioned exists for all other terms and conditions of employment, but not for those connected with pay. Why, then, does she adopt this position, which seems to me inconsistent with what everyone agrees works well in the rest of discrimination law?

Vera Baird: We have said many times why we think that the unintended consequences are much more far-reaching in the pay sector than they are elsewhere. That is why we have always drawn back from allowing hypothetical comparators. They are not essentially a tool of the mission on which we are embarked; they would send it into very diverse courses, which is not our target.
	Let me mention a fairly recent case. People worry especially about women involved in contracting out-where, for example, a local authority's cleaning is contracted out-because they are left without a remedy in that they no longer have a male comparator. They are the cleaners, they are ghettoised and they are women, so they no longer have a male comparator doing equal work. The thrust of the argument for hypothetical comparators seems to be that they would address that problem.
	The hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth), who is a smart lawyer, will know that the Court of Appeal in the case of Guttridge  v . Sodexo has shown that a right to equal pay under an equality clause is protected following a TUPE transfer, and that employees will be able to enforce that claim against their new employer. Since that was the height of the argument in favour, and given that we do not agree with it because of the possible unintended consequences, I hope that people are none the less reassured that some of the teeth have been drawn.

Jeremy Corbyn: The Minister makes a point about employees transferred with TUPE protection, but the problem often arises that groups of workers that have been transferred with that protection are joined by new recruits who do not have the same protection, leading to the inbuilt problem of a disparity between conditions, and sometimes the introduction of discrimination after the TUPE protection has expired.

Vera Baird: The usefulness of the case-although it does not extend to the circumstances envisaged by my hon. Friend-lies in the fact that as long as an action is brought within the six-months following the separation of a local authority, for instance, from its employees, equal pay can be guaranteed for all who have been transferred. As for the future and other aspects of fair pay, they are really outside the ambit of the Bill. We ought to seek other mechanisms to ensure that pay is fair. In this instance, we are discussing equality of pay between men and women, and other members with protected characteristics.
	I must say, with huge respect to my hon. Friend, that although we all mean well and want to ensure that people receive fair pay, he has, in a sense, helped my argument that it is possible to take hypothetical comparators too far and end up a long way away from the issue with which we are dealing. I do not suggest for a moment that there are not other ways in which we must tackle low pay-there certainly are, and we have used them repeatedly-but hypothetical comparators are not the crux.
	New clause 6 and amendments 1 and 68 concern the material factor defence. It was at this point that the numbering of the clauses was a bit adrift. The new clause and amendment 1 replace clause 66, which provides a defence of "a material factor" to a claim under an equality clause, with an alternative wording intended to achieve an effect similar to that of clause 66. We debated this subject in Committee. We cannot accept the amendment today, but we are considering the issue that was raised by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) in Committee, and we think that there will be an opportunity to bring about some movement on it in another place.
	Clause 66 is intended to replicate the effect of the current law, which says that a material factor that is directly discriminatory simply fails, and one that is indirectly discriminatory must be justified objectively in order to succeed. That is the policy intention behind the amendment, and it is ours as well.

Evan Harris: rose-

Vera Baird: I was about to point out that there is a clash of words. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is about to mention it.

Evan Harris: Concessions by the Government have become so rare that they ought to be noted in interventions. I am grateful to the Solicitor-General for saying that she will reflect on the material factor defence. It would be good to hear that at any stage in the Bill's passage. I recognise that it will have to be dealt with in another place rather than on Report, but it would be churlish to let it go unremarked on, and we are grateful.

Vera Baird: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's gratitude. The question of phraseology remains, and I do not think that we are going to accept his phraseology, but if he agrees not to press his amendment, we will reflect and see whether we can reach some understanding.
	Amendment 68 relates to the long-term objective of reducing inequality between the terms of men and women, which should always be regarded as a legitimate aim. Removing pay inequality between men and women is the main goal of some parts of the Bill. However, we do not underestimate the challenges faced by employers dealing with the legacy of pay inequality. Reviews of pay structures such as those that take place now, and will take place more fully following the enactment of the Bill, and restructuring of businesses and new ways of doing work can result in pay discrepancies.
	Clause 66 is intended to encourage employers, employees and their unions to identify and resolve pay inequality by negotiation, which is much better than litigation. Its purpose is to put the legitimacy of that goal beyond doubt. It does not provide an easy get-out for employers, and it will not reduce protection for women. An employer who relies on this factor must always show that the means used are proportionate. However, it is important to make it clear that the best way to achieve the long-term objective of removing inequality is negotiation in circumstances that might otherwise involve real difficulties in relation to pay discrimination.
	I shall now turn to new clauses 11, 21 and 22. The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green and I both said we would revisit the issue in question on Report, and we have done so. It is about the CV survey, which I think I first disclosed in Committee, on how recruitment is conducted. The report following this survey was published in October and it confirms that there is undoubtedly race discrimination in the recruitment process. The report showed that whereas a white applicant had to send an average of nine applications before getting a favourable response-an invitation to have an interview or a telephone call to encourage them-an ethnic minority applicant had to send 16 applications. What to do about the report's findings should be decided by the body that started the ball rolling in the first place: the Ethnic Minority Employment Task Force. It should have met to talk about that last month, in which case I would have told Members what it had discussed. It was unable to meet owing to unforeseen circumstances, but it will meet in the new year.
	The report suggests that such discrimination is most prevalent in small and medium-sized businesses, and it offers two possible reasons for that: first, that such businesses may not use standardised application forms; and secondly, because SMEs tend not to have separate human resources departments with distinct staff whose job it is to ensure that application forms are anonymous. In a business where only two or three people work, for example, it is not at all likely that that would be practical. Although the hon. Lady's amendment is a genuine attempt to deal with this issue, it does not contemplate the possibility that in certain circumstances it may be necessary, and indeed beneficial, to take protected characteristics into account-for instance, for positive action. We will therefore all have to consider what the appropriate policy response is.
	The hon. Lady talked about work being done to combat subliminal discrimination-which caused a good deal of amusement to the hon. Member for Shipley, as I am sure she can imagine. We know about that, too. The current edition of the Incomes Data Services  Diversity at Work publication says that Ernst and Young has found a learning tool that demonstrates its decision makers' unconscious bias, and how that works. The training that it has piloted has led to a reduction in the gender and ethnicity disparity in the firm's performance rating. Thus good practice of that kind can play a role. Although we have looked for, and found, race discrimination in a new place, that does not necessarily mean that we need a new law to match it. We have not looked for it in order to do nothing about it when we have found it, however, and I invite the hon. Lady to withdraw her amendment on the basis that the taskforce is the best mechanism to drive forward whatever we need to do to get rid of that completely unacceptable discrimination.
	Like our new clause 40, new clauses 21 and 22 would prohibit the use of pre-employment questionnaires in specific circumstances, but we have discussed the essence of this, and the Opposition new clauses do not go as far as our new clause, and do not give the protection that disabled people need, because they make no provision to bring employers to account. There would have to be a tribunal hearing, but just declaring something unlawful does not take the matter very far. Our proposal backs that up by reversing the burden of proof at the tribunal. We therefore think that our new clause is better and stronger; we do not think there is much between our proposals, but if the Opposition were to see fit not to press their proposals to a Division, we would be very content.
	Amendment 70, tabled by the hon. Member for Shipley, is intended to test the reasoning behind the pay secrecy clauses. Clause 74 is intended to ensure protection against victimisation for employees who discuss their pay with colleagues when they are not generally contemplating a claim as such, but want to find out if differences exist that are related to a protected characteristic necessary to help get better gender pay transparency, and also to protect people when they try to find out whether they are being discriminated against in pay terms.
	Rival amendments have been tabled, because the hon. Member for Shipley wants this clause in the bin whereas the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green wants to make it wider. Her proposal gives us a few causes for concern, because she would like to ensure secrecy in discussions with third parties as well as with fellow employees, and that could include a direct competitor. There could be very sound reasons, quite unrelated to discrimination, why employers would not want their levels of pay to be disclosed to a competitor, who might undercut them, undercut their margins or offer the employee more. Protecting a person who takes such an approach would go well away from the aims of the legislation, which are about allowing everyone to know what they are being paid. We do not think it is necessary, as she does, to include a provision to protect someone who seeks advice from a third party. If that third party is a trade union, section 146 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 protects that kind of conversation, and if it is a lawyer, the conversation will be protected by privilege. We think that the hon. Lady's proposal goes too far, and we ask her not to press it to a Division.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) proposed putting equality reps on a statutory basis. We are very sympathetic to that, because they need facility time, which learning reps and health and safety reps have. As he acknowledged, we have supported trade union equality reps. Unions such as Unison, Unite, the Public and Commercial Services Union and the National Union of Teachers have piloted 15 schemes to demonstrate the value to employers of the work of equality reps in workplaces where there are trade unions. As my hon. Friend said, we acted on the recommendations of the Women and Work Commission. We spent £1.5 million from the union modernisation fund and Government Equalities Office cash to build capacity and to support the evaluation of the effectiveness of the reps. That is where we are now. The funding comes to an end this year, but we hope that by then we will have received an evaluation. That is what we are waiting for from the TUC.

John McDonnell: Will the evaluation be received in time for the consideration of this Bill in the Lords, so that the Government will be able to amend it accordingly?

Vera Baird: I do not know. We have been asking for the evaluation for some time. I was anxious to receive it before this stage if that was practicable, but we have not received it: that is the situation. In readiness to receive this evaluation, we have conducted a round of discussions with employers and others, and the opinions we heard were a bit divided. Therefore, we also want to use the evaluation to persuade employers about the benefits, but the long and short of it is that that is what we are waiting for.
	I shall move on to the different issue that my hon. Friends the Members for Hayes and Harlington and for Dover (Gwyn Prosser) have brought before us. Their amendment 34 seeks to remove the power for Ministers to introduce affirmative regulations specifying how part 5 of the Bill, which deals with the "work" provisions, would apply to seafarers and those who work on hovercraft. Without any such regulations, the application of part 5 would be a matter for tribunals and the courts to decide on a case-by-case basis. I cannot imagine that anybody would want that, because it would cause confusion and uncertainty.
	The context in which seafarers undertake their work is different from that of other workers. Many issues relating to ships and their crew are governed by the law of the state where the ship is registered, but others may be governed by the law of the state in whose waters the ship is located. A ship can be constantly moving between waters under the jurisdiction of different states, and might not be operating in the waters of its own flag state. Given that context, we definitely do not want the facts about to whom this part applies and to whom it does not apply to be determined on a case-by-case basis. That is why we need regulations, and why, in due course, we will urge my hon. Friends not to press their amendment, which would stop those regulations being made.
	The UK is entitled to apply its law to vessels registered in the UK, but international law and custom limit the extent to which the provisions can be applied to non-UK registered vessels even while they are in UK waters. The Equality Bill is completely silent on how part 5 applies generally and regulations must be made to apply it to ships and seafarers in all those locations and circumstances to ensure that seafarers are protected from discrimination at work as and where appropriate. Without the regulations, it would be completely unclear. Everybody wants to see seafarers protected from discrimination, but we must tailor the way in which this is achieved.
	Let me move on to the concern that drives my two hon. Friends to try to remove the regulation-making powers when they clearly appreciate as well as we do that it is important to have certainty in application. I think that the regulation-making power is wide enough to address the issue of differential pay among seafarers.
	It is common practice in the shipping industry for seafarers' pay to reflect the country where they are based and therefore where they are likely to spend their wages. Historically, that has been lawful by reference to nationality in the UK through section 9 of the Race Relations Act 1976, which is repealed by the Equality Bill. I understand that my colleagues who are seeking this amendment would like to see differential pay outlawed totally in the UK and are concerned that, by allowing the regulation-making power in the Bill, the Government will replace section 9 or put in pay differentiation in some way.
	It is right to say that the Government must carefully consider the implications of disallowing the practice, including the economic impact, and weigh up the possibility of putting UK employers at a significant commercial disadvantage. That said, the Government are acutely aware of the opposite case and of the strength of feeling against reintroducing even a more narrowly drawn replacement for section 9, or anything like it. So, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Paul Clark), published draft regulations earlier this week. They offer an insight into how the Government think the provisions in part 5 will apply to seafarers and remain silent-we will return to this-on the issue of differential pay.
	The final regulations will determine the extent to which part 5 applies to seafarers. As published, the work protection would be given to a seafarer working wholly or partly in Great Britain on a UK-registered ship or a seafarer working wholly or partly in Great Britain on a ship flagged to an EEA state other than the UK while it is in UK waters if the seafarer is British, an EEA national or a citizen of a state with corresponding EU law rights, provided that the seafarer has a legal relationship located in Great Britain or has a sufficiently close link with Great Britain. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington asked for some explanation of what a sufficiently close link would be, and I shall try to help with that in a minute.
	The third category to which part 5 would apply under the current regulations is to a seafarer working wholly outside Great Britain on a UK-registered ship if the seafarer is a British citizen or a national of an EEA state or a state with corresponding EU rights, provided that their employment relationship is in Great Britain or, again, has a sufficiently close link. The non-UK and non-EEA states are those that have an associative agreement with the EU. They include, for instance, Nigeria and Guyana, from which, I understand, some seafarers are drawn.
	What counts as a sufficiently close link to bring those second kinds of seafarer under the protection of the Bill depends on an overall balance of a range of factors. However, factors that may be relevant are: whether a person is employed on board a ship where the ship is registered-its flag state; the law under which the employer company is incorporated; where the employer's business is established; where an employee is recruited or hired, or where the contract for employment is concluded; under which territory's law the employment relationship is entered into; which territory's law applies to the whole employment relationship; the jurisdiction under which disputes about employment relationships should be brought; the legal systems to which the two individuals are subject; to which territory's social security system the employee is affiliated; the territory where the employee pays income tax; the nationality and ordinary residence of the employee; and whether the employment involves the performance of sovereign functions, which I do not suppose happens very much.
	My hon. Friends the Member for Hayes and Harlington and for Dover, with whom I had the pleasure of meeting last night with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, gave me a set of examples about people working on ships between Aberdeen and Lerwick, and asked whether they would be covered by the regulations as currently drafted and hence protected against that unequal pay. The answer is that one would have to consider all those characteristics.

John McDonnell: From a brief examination of my hon. and learned Friend's words, I suggest that the Filipinos working on those ships would not be covered because they are non-EEA and non-EC employees.

Vera Baird: So far as I have got, that looks to be correct. My hon. Friend asked for guidance and I have done my limited best to give it. So, that is where we are with differential pay. For the avoidance of doubt, in the draft regulations published by the Under-Secretary there is no reference to pay differentiation, which means that if they were approved by Parliament as they are now, the practice would not be lawful at all. As I understand it, that is a very clear position. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington is aware that in the ordinary course of consulting on these regulations, letters have gone out to ask all stakeholders what they think would be the implications of removing that kind of differential pay. I fear that we must await the outcome of that consultation before going forward. I hope that I have given him some comfort, if no more.

John McDonnell: Before my hon. and learned Friend moves on, may I ask something else about differential pay? It would be helpful to get it on the record that the existing regulations do not apply to pay, although others might interpret the measures differently. However, they do apply to this part of the Bill more generally, in terms of equalities. As the consultation is taking place promptly, and as we believe that it will take place over a restricted period of time, may I ask her about the potential to address the issue of differential pay after that consultation and to put it in the Bill when it goes to the Lords?

Vera Baird: I heard my hon. Friend suggest that, and we have discussed it briefly here, but I do not think that the right way forward is to put what are essentially regulations in the Bill. Indeed, I am not sure whether we can do that. It might be possible and it might help to finalise the consultation process as early as possible and to publish the proposed regulations, so that everyone can see what is coming and can start to adjust to what will happen. In terms of a timetable, the final regulations will be introduced after Royal Assent, because they will need to be in place to come into force at the same time as part 5. Royal Assent will probably be in April and the commencement of part 5 will probably be in October, so there would be a significant amount of time to wait. My hon. Friend has made his points on this issue, but the publication of the proposed regulations might go at least some way towards flagging up what is coming and towards obliging people to start to comply.

John McDonnell: I should like to express my gratitude that the Minister has at least taken on board the spirit of what we are intending. A prompt publication of the regulations would help, but there is no impediment whatsoever to making them part of the Bill. Will she look at that again, and take advice?

Vera Baird: The obvious objection is that putting the regulations in primary legislation means that they cannot be changed without more primary legislation. That is a very laborious process, and the whole point of double-decker legislation is that things can be changed as and when necessary. The judgment is that these matters ought to be set out in regulation. I shall not take the point any further, but my hon. Friend can press it with the Department for Transport. Officials there have accepted the proposal that they should meet to discuss the different legal opinions, and we expect a Minister in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to consider the matter later on. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Transport and I will also be able to help so, on that basis, I hope that the amendments will not be pressed.
	The hon. Member for Shipley would like to strip away all protection for businesses with fewer than 250 employees.  [ Interruption. ] I am being pressed about the time, but I have a lot of questions to answer. I shall just say to the hon. Gentleman that we are not going to accept his proposal. Most employers are covered already by discrimination law: we intend them to remain that way, and I hope he will not press his new clause 36.
	I also hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press his new clause 38, which proposes restricting the use of positive action by public authorities. He said that his purpose was to put an end to new burdens but he is barking up the wrong tree, as positive action has been available for a very long time. It is 30 years since the sex and race discrimination Acts were passed: both of them have been very well used, as have the later Acts banning discrimination on grounds of religion or belief, sexual orientation or age. Many public bodies, including the police and fire services and the NHS, use them, and they would not be able to meet their legal obligations to promote equality in race, gender and disability so easily if they could not use positive action. They would not be able to fulfil their responsibilities in respect of all the protected characteristics if they were not able to use positive action.
	It would be very strange to prevent public sector bodies from using positive action when those in the private sector would still be able to use it. Where would that leave a private company delivering a service on behalf of a public authority? I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman not to press his new clause 38, on the basis that he has made his point.

Philip Davies: May I make it clear that I did not table my amendments with the intention of pressing any to a Division? I tabled them as probing amendments, so that we could discuss some of the issues that I believe are of great concern to many people in this country.

Vera Baird: Then I hope that the hon. Gentleman is satisfied with the discussion that he has managed to provoke. If that is his approach to all the new clauses and amendments that he has tabled, I can probably make somewhat quicker progress.
	I take it that the hon. Gentleman was just having a laugh as well with his proposal about levelling down pay. Similarly, I assume that his new clause on maternity was tabled just to see how we all reacted and how many times we said, "Ah, no, that really can't be right."
	I said that I would return to the question of reporting of gender pay gaps and give an update on the progress made by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. It is happy for me to share with the House that its proposals will include a range of measures on the gender pay gap. The measures will enable comparability, although employers will be encouraged to select from them in the way that best suits their circumstances. There will not be a one-measurement-fits-all approach, and I can confirm that the commission will produce its proposals as quickly as it can.
	Amendments 76 and 78 were also tabled by the hon. Member for Shipley. He used amendment 77 to probe clause 125, which deals with the purpose of time limits on equality clauses-quite a techie issue-and I wonder whether I can commend the debates that we had in Committee on those subjects. We cannot accept the points made about members of the armed forces not being able to initiate tribunal cases. We have given a longer period for the armed forces, because they must go through their own process first, and we think that is the right balance.

Ann Widdecombe: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In a situation in which we have limited time to debate a large number of amendments, is it really within the spirit of our proceedings that the Minister should take almost an hour and still not finish?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the occupant of the Chair. As the right hon. Lady will know, how long Ministers take is entirely a matter for them, but I would observe to the House that the whole of the Bill's consideration on Report must be completed by 6 o'clock.

Vera Baird: I have to answer on the whole of a vast range of proposals, and I have done so with what dispatch I can. I am sorry if I have not pleased the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe).  [ Interruption. ] No one asked for another day.
	Amendment 18 deals with the difference between the terms "as qualified as" and "equally qualified to". We are concerned that that is about positive action. The phrase "equally qualified to" may have unintended consequences. Let me say, in the interests of dispatch, that we will maintain the positions that we kept in Committee, but we hope that that distinction probably without a difference is not something that the Opposition will want to press to a vote.
	Amendments 125, on equal pay exceptions, and 126 were also tabled by the hon. Member for Shipley. He has done us all a great service by raising those issues and then withdrawing them very quickly.
	Amendment 24-last, sadly-deals with the ability of employers to use different national minimum wage rates for younger people. The Government want people to be paid a decent wage, but we rely on the independent Low Pay Commission, which makes clear the higher vulnerability of young people in the labour market to the economic cycle. They have high unemployment rates, and their employment rates are lower. In 2009, the commission's report stated:
	"Young people have continued to do less well in the labour market than older workers and are particularly vulnerable in an economic downturn. We therefore believe that lower National Minimum Wage rates for young people are still justified in order to protect employment and at the same time reflect the training element attached to younger workers."
	I commend new clause 40 and the related new clauses.
	 Question put and agree d to.
	 New clause 40 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 41
	 — 
	Irrelevance of alleged discriminator's characteristics

'(1) For the purpose of establishing a contravention of this Act by virtue of section 13(1), it does not matter whether A has the protected characteristic.
	(2) For the purpose of establishing a contravention of this Act by virtue of section 14(1), it does not matter-
	(a) whether A has one of the protected characteristics in the combination;
	(b) whether A has both.'.- (Vera Baird.)
	 Brought up, and read the First time.

Vera Baird: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: new clause 7- Harassment (sexual orientation)-education and services and public functions-
	'(1) A person (A) harasses another (B) if A engages in unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic which has the purpose or effect mentioned in subsection (2).
	(2) The purpose or effect is-
	(a) violating B's dignity, and
	(b) creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for B.
	(3) In deciding whether conduct has that effect, each of the following must be taken into account-
	(a) the perception of B;
	(b) the other circumstances of the case;
	(c) whether it is reasonable for the conduct to have that effect.
	(4) The relevant protected characteristic is sexual orientation.
	(5) This section applies to-
	(a) Part 3 (services and public functions) where the service or public function is carried out by a public authority, or on behalf of a public authority, under the terms of a contract with a public authority, or is otherwise a function of a public nature, and
	(b) Part 6 (education).'.
	New clause 8- Harassment (gender reassignment)-education-
	'(1) A person (A) harasses another (B) if-
	(a) A engages in unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic which has the purpose or effect mentioned in subsection (2),
	(b) A engages in any form of unwanted verbal, non-verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature that has that purpose or effect, or
	(c) because of B's rejection of or submission to conduct (whether or not of A), A treats B less favourably than A would treat B if B had not rejected or submitted to the conduct.
	(2) The purpose or effect is-
	(a) violating B's dignity, and
	(b) creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for B.
	(3) In deciding whether conduct has that effect, each of the following must be taken into account-
	(a) the perception of B;
	(b) the other circumstances of the case;
	(c) whether it is reasonable for the conduct to have that effect.
	(4) For the purposes of subsection (1)(c), the conduct is-
	(a) conduct mentioned in subsection (1)(a), or
	(b) conduct mentioned in subsection (1)(b).
	(5) The relevant protected characteristic is gender reassignment.
	(6) This section applies to Part 6 (education).'.
	New clause 9- Harassment (religion or belief)-education and services and public functions-
	'(1) A person (A) harasses another (B) if A engages in unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic which has the purpose or effect mentioned in subsection (2).
	(2) The purpose or effect is-
	(a) violating B's dignity, and
	(b) creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading or humiliating environment for B.
	(3) In deciding whether conduct has that effect, each of the following must be taken into account-
	(a) the perception of B;
	(b) the other circumstances of the case;
	(c) whether it is reasonable for the conduct to have that effect.
	(4) The relevant protected characteristic is religion or belief.
	(5) This section applies to-
	(a) Part 3 (services and public functions) where the service or public function is carried out by a public authority, or on behalf of a public authority, under the terms of a contract with a public authority, or is otherwise a function of a public nature, and
	(b) Part 6 (education).'.
	New clause 10- Caste-
	'In relation to the protected characteristic of caste-
	(a) a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a person of a particular caste;
	(b) a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to a person of the same caste.'.
	New clause 18- Direct discrimination arising from sexual orientation-
	'A person (A) discriminates against another (B) on grounds of sexual orientation if, because of a manifestation or behaviour connected with B's sexual orientation, A treats B less favourably than A treats or would treat others.'.
	New clause 19- Discrimination by association and perception-
	'A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if A treats B less favourably than A treats or would treat others because-
	(a) A perceives B to have a protected characteristic, or
	(b) B associates with a person (C) who has a protected characteristic.'.
	New clause 30- Caste (No. 2)-
	'(1) If a Minister of the Crown is satisfied that any person is suffering, or has suffered, discrimination, harassment or victimisation on the ground of caste, a Minister of the Crown may by order amend section 4 to provide for the characteristic of caste to be a protected characteristic.
	(2) An order under this section may make such supplementary provision as a Minister of the Crown considers appropriate.
	(3) An order under this section must be made by statutory instrument and is subject to the affirmative procedure.'.
	New clause 31- Religious care homes for the elderly-
	'(1) Subsection (2) applies to a voluntary care home for persons in need of personal care by reason of old age and infirmity that-
	(a) is an organisation of the kind referred to in Schedule 23, paragraph 2(1), or
	(b) acts on behalf of or under the auspices of such an organisation.
	(2) Subject to subsection (3), nothing in this Act shall make it unlawful for such a care home to restrict the provision of its services or facilities to a person on the grounds of his sexual orientation.
	(3) If such a care home restricts the provision of those services or facilities as mentioned in subsection (2), it must at the same time refer the person seeking them to another person who the agency believes provides similar services or facilities to persons of his sexual orientation.
	(4) Subsection (2) permits a restriction only if imposed-
	(a) if it is necessary to comply with the doctrine of the organisation, or
	(b) so as to avoid conflicting with the strongly held religious convictions of a significant number of the religion's followers.'.
	New clause 32- Religious adoption and fostering agencies-
	'(1) Subsection (2) applies to a voluntary adoption agency or fostering agency that-
	(a) is an organisation of the kind referred to in Schedule 23, paragraph 2(1), or
	(b) acts on behalf of or under the auspices of such an organisation.
	(2) Subject to subsection (3), nothing in this Act shall make it unlawful for such a voluntary adoption agency or fostering agency to restrict the provision of its services or facilities to a person on the grounds of his sexual orientation.
	(3) If such a voluntary adoption agency or fostering agency restrict the provision of those services or facilities as mentioned in subsection (2), it must at the same time refer the person seeking them to another person who the agency believes provides similar services or facilities to persons of his sexual orientation.
	(4) Subsection (2) permits a restriction only if imposed-
	(a) if it is necessary to comply with the doctrine of the organisation, or
	(b) so as to avoid conflicting with the strongly-held religious convictions of a significant number of the religion's followers.'.
	New clause 35- Scottish Gypsy Travellers-
	'A person has the protected characteristic of being a Scottish Gypsy Traveller if they by reason of their common heritage, culture and traditions, that may but need not include a nomadic way of life in Scotland, may reasonably regard themselves as a Scottish Gypsy Traveller as others may reasonably be expected to be aware of.'.
	New clause 43- Caste (No. 3)-
	'(1) Caste includes-
	(a) jati;
	(b) biraderi.
	(2) A person has the protected characteristic of caste if the person is a member of a caste group found within a hierarchical group-based system of social stratification, where both membership and group and individual status are hereditary, ascribed, and permanent.
	(3) In relation to the protected characteristic of caste-
	(a) a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a person of a particular caste group;
	(b) a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to persons of the same caste group.
	(4) The fact that a caste group comprises two or more distinct caste groups does not prevent it from constituting a particular caste group.'.
	Amendment 2, in clause 4, page 4, line 15, at end insert-'caste.'.
	Amendment 53,page 4, line 15, at end insert-
	'being a Scottish Gypsy Traveller.'.
	Amendment 16, in clause 13, page 6, line 31, leave out 'because of' and insert 'on grounds of'.
	Amendment 187, page 7, line 6, after 'race', insert 'or caste'.
	Government amendment 144.
	Amendment 55, page 7, line 11, leave out paragraph (a).
	Amendment 188, in clause 14, page 7, line 23, at end insert-
	'(aa) caste;'.
	Government amendment 145.
	Amendment 58, page 10, line 1, leave out clause 19.
	Amendment 189, in clause 19, page 10, line 16, at end insert-
	'caste;'.
	Government amendment 149.
	Amendment 190, in clause 24, page 12, line 24, at end insert-
	'(1A) Caste discrimination is-
	(a) discrimination within section 13 because of caste;
	(b) discrimination within section 19 where the relevant protected characteristic is caste.'.
	Government amendments 152 to 154.
	Amendment 191, in clause 25, page 13, line 42, at end insert-
	'caste;'.
	Amendment 194, in clause 34, page 18, line 38, at end insert-
	'(1A) For the purposes of subsection (1)(c), "detriment" may include-
	(a) refusal by A to exercise any power that A has with relation to the premises;
	(b) insistence by A on enforcing any provision of any relevant lease or other agreement.'.
	Government amendments 162 to 165.
	Amendment 72, page 52, line 5, leave out clause 81.
	Amendment 74, page 65, line 8, leave out clauses 104 to 108.
	Amendment 192, in clause 145, page 92, line 6, at end insert-
	'caste;'.
	Amendment 102, in clause 188, page 115, line 36, leave out from 'aim' to end of line 38.
	Amendment 196, in clause 192, page 117, line 35, at end insert-
	'(A1) It is not a contravention of this Act for-
	(a) a person or organisation which provides tourism or holiday services to place age limits on group holidays or holidays catering for people of particular ages;
	(b) a person or organisation to design and provide financial products for specific market segments qualified by age or age groups;
	(c) a person or organisation to provide insurance programmes where the calculations of the premiums for such programmes are based on reasonable evidence of the underlying difference in risk based on the purchaser's age or age group.'.
	Government amendment 177.
	Amendment 119, in schedule 3, page 134, line 16, at end insert-
	'(3) Nothing in this paragraph is to be taken as a requirement for the same number of places to be provided for both boys and girls.'.
	Government amendment 179.
	Amendment 120, page 139, line 22, leave out paragraph (e).
	Amendment 121, page 140, line 1, after 'effective', insert 'or appropriate'.
	Amendment 122, page 140, line 7, after 'effective', insert 'or appropriate'.
	Amendment 123, in schedule 5, page 147, line 30, leave out sub-paragraph (3).
	Amendment 197, in schedule 9, page 161, line 27, at end insert
	', and
	(d) the requirement is a genuine and determining one.'.
	Amendment 37, page 162, line 13, leave out sub-paragraph (8).
	Amendment 130, page 167, line 4, leave out from 'leave' to end of line 43.
	Amendment 132, page 178, line 28, at end insert-
	 'Co-educational institutions turning single sex3A The responsible body of a co-educational school does not contravene this Act so far as relating to sex discrimination if it is a co-educational school deciding to alter its admission arrangements so that the school will be a single sex school.'.
	Government amendment 186.
	Amendment 14, in schedule 22, in page 210, line 42, leave out sub-sub-paragraphs (a) and (b).
	Amendment 15, page 211, line 2, at end insert
	'except in relation to academy schools'.
	Amendment 198, in schedule 23, page 212, line 11, leave out 'an organisation' and insert 'activities'.
	Amendment 199, page 212, line 12, at end insert-
	'(2A) This paragraph does not apply to any activity done-
	(a) on behalf of a public authority, and
	(b) under the terms of a contract between the organisation and the public authority.'.
	Amendment 200, page 213, line 9, after 'orientation', insert 'or religion'.
	Amendment 31, in schedule 27, page 223, line 32, at end insert-
	
		
			 'School Standards and Framework Act 1998 Section 58(6) and (7). Section 60(4) and (5).'. 
		
	
	Amendment 193, in schedule 28, in page 225, line 14, at end insert -
	
		
			 'Caste Section [Caste (No.3)] 
			 Caste discrimination Section 24 (1A)'.

Vera Baird: These are miscellaneous but important new clauses and amendments. Many of them were tabled by the Opposition, but I shall start with the Government ones.
	New clause 41 and the associated amendment support the Bill's aim of clarifying the legislation, and we have listened to points made by hon. Members in Committee. The new clause is needed also in consequence of clause 14, which was added in Committee and protects people from dual discrimination.
	The amendments are necessary to ensure that, in cases of direct or dual discrimination, the alleged discriminator cannot argue that they are not liable because they share the protected characteristic. Without the amendments a gay man, for example, might dispel an allegation that he had discriminated against another gay man because he himself is gay. That coincidence is irrelevant under the Bill.
	We discussed the matter in the eighth sitting of the Committee. The key question was whether, by stating overtly the long established convention that it is immaterial in a case of direct discrimination that the alleged discriminator is of the same religion or belief as the victim, this cast doubt on the situation for other protected characteristics. Our starting point was that it should not have cast doubt because we have merely replicated the law as it applies, uniquely, to religion or belief, and we thought that parallel issues were unlikely to arise. We then considered that the scope for intra-religious discrimination required us to take the action that we have taken.
	As a presentational matter, the difference with this Bill is that we now have a single clause setting out the definition of direct discrimination and the qualifications to it, for all the protected strands, but unlike some of the other caveats and elaborations in the clause for particular strands, subsection (6) could, to the unfamiliar, raise questions about where this leaves other characteristics, in cases in which the claimant and the discriminator share the protected characteristic. We do not think that real problems will arise.
	We have listened to the arguments made by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), though, when he advanced the case for an amendment, and we have taken his argument pretty well on board. There are two more points that I could make in favour of these changes, but as he advocated them very strongly and we have accepted them, he will be pleased, I hope, and we need not elaborate why we did so.
	Clause 14 is about dual discrimination, allowing somebody who has been treated less favourably because of a combination of two protected characteristics to bring a claim. That was introduced towards the end of the Committee stage. The amendments today will make it clearer how the provisions work. There are many consequential amendments that we could not pick up in Committee because the clauses affected had already been debated by the time we introduced the new clause.
	On amendment 145 to clause 14, the basic principle is that although the conduct alleged in a dual discrimination claim must be prohibited in respect of each of the protected characteristics in the combination, a claimant does not have to prove that he or she was treated less favourably because of each of them in turn. However, where an exception or justification applies to the conduct which would mean that it was not unlawful direct discrimination because of one or both of the protected characteristics, a dual discrimination claim cannot succeed.
	For example, discrimination in employment is prohibited in respect of both sex and race. That would mean that a black man may bring a claim of dual discrimination if he is denied a job because of the combination of his sex and race. He would not need to be able to prove that he was treated less favourably because of his sex and because of his race separately. However, if the employer could show that it is an occupational requirement for the job that it should be held by a woman, and therefore that denying the job to a man would not be unlawful, the claim would not succeed. This is not a change of policy, but it is important clarification because there are provisions in the Bill that allow genuine occupational exemptions of this kind. We have put in place amendments to capture those justifications and exceptions from any other Act as well.
	In addition, clause 14 relates to cases of disability discrimination in education which are heard by the special educational needs and disability tribunals or equivalent specialist tribunals. We are excluding from the scope of clause 14 circumstances involving discrimination in education because of disability. That is because the case of someone being treated less favourably by a school, owing to the combination of disability and another protected characteristic, would be met by a single-strand claim in the specialist tribunal. It is better to defer to the expertise of those exclusive jurisdictional regimes than to undermine them by sending combined claims out of their specialist area to the civil courts. We are not stopping a remedy; we are providing the one that we think best fits.
	We need to make that amendment to clause 14 to reflect the changes to the rest of the clause, but they are quite techie and detailed and I do not feel that people will be disadvantaged if I do not set out exactly why we need all the consequential amendments. By and large, there was cross-party support for dual discrimination, and it follows that, because the measure was introduced late in the day, we will have to put in shape all prior clauses in order to acknowledge it.
	Amendments 152 to 154 are about clarifying "harassment" in clause 25. Amendment 152 replaces the bulk of subsections (1) and (2) with some more straightforward propositions. Currently, subsection (1)(b) defines sexual harassment by copying the wording of European directives, namely whereby somebody
	"engages in any form of unwanted verbal, non-verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature".
	We replicated that wording when we amended the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 to implement the relevant directive, but it is difficult to identify any sexual harassment that would not be verbal, non-verbal or physical, therefore those words were probably always superfluous. The wording has not been a problem with the 1975 Act, but in the more far-reaching Equality Bill it could cast doubt on broader references to "conduct".
	The second matter that amendment 152 addresses is an ambiguity in clause 25(4). "Harassment" in clause 25 encompasses three kinds of conduct: first, unwanted conduct in relation to all the protected characteristics, but not pregnancy, maternity, marriage and civil partnership; secondly, sexual harassment; and thirdly, less favourable treatment because a person has rejected or submitted to either sexual harassment or harassment related to sex or gender reassignment.
	Clause 25(4) covers the third form. The provision is ambiguous and we need to clarify it to ensure that the conduct that is submitted to or rejected has the purpose or effect of violating the complainant's dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. The ambiguity arises because of the way in which the three forms of harassment are described, so we have, as it were, restructured the provision.
	Amendment 179 amends schedule 3, which relates to part 3 of the Bill, on services and public functions. The issue is about the provision of services to employees and the ways in which they are to be treated as a section of the public. That is relatively straightforward when it involves the arrangement by employers of such services for employees as gym membership, but when the employer discriminates in providing access to that service, the employer can be held liable. Employers should ensure that all employees can access the service without being discriminated against, but that becomes more difficult when it is applied to group financial products such as group insurance policies-arrangements between an employer and an insurer for the benefit of the employees, their partners and so on.
	Group personal pensions are arranged by the employer for the employee as part of their overall package. They are entered into on the basis not of individual characteristics, but of the employer's business and the overall profile of their employees. Currently, employers are responsible for those schemes, as they are part of the employment relationship, and the amendment would remove from the scope of the provisions services group insurance schemes that are arranged in that way. It is very important that I mention that, as it is a change of that kind.
	Amendment 186 is a purely technical amendment, so let me bother the House with it no longer. I look forward to hearing from the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper) about the Conservative new clauses.

Mark Harper: Before I speak to the new clause, I want to say a brief word about timing-a point well raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe). It is obvious at this stage of proceedings, with less than one and a half hours to go until the Report stage concludes, that there has been a gross underestimation of the time that the House requires for debate. That is solely a matter for the Government. Last week I wrote to the Leader of the House-a letter that I copied to Mr. Speaker and to which I am yet to receive a reply-pointing out that she had committed to the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) to open negotiations with the Opposition parties and interested Back Benchers on the timing of the scrutiny of the Bill on Report. That appears in the  Official Report of 25 June 2009. That negotiation never happened. She also said that she wanted to ensure that the way that we scrutinised this Bill was an exemplar of how the House of Commons scrutinises Bills. I think it is clear that it is no such thing. If it is an example, it is a very poor one.

Michael Howard: In the light of what my hon. Friend has said, should not the Minister withdraw the remark that she made a few moments ago when she said that the Government were not asked to provide more time for consideration of the Bill?

Mark Harper: rose-

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before this matter proceeds any further, I think that the hon. Gentleman's comments clearly indicate that time is now of the essence. Perhaps these are matters for another day. I suggest that he now makes the necessary remarks about new clause 41.

Mark Harper: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) recognises that I will follow it.
	The Solicitor-General has clearly outlined the purpose of new clause 41, and we are perfectly happy to accept it. I want to speak to some of the other new clauses and amendments in the group. For the benefit of the House, I will make my remarks as brief as I can. I am not going to curtail necessary debate and the points that I need to make merely because we are short of time, but I will not prolong my remarks unnecessarily. New clauses 7, 8, 9, 18 and 19 and amendments 14, 15 and 31 cover harassment on several grounds relating to sexual orientation or other gender issues. Some of those were tabled by the Liberal Democrats; I understand that the key one is new clause 7, which they may well want to speak to. Having looked at the new clause and reconsidered the matter, I thought that it would be helpful if I outlined our views on it. In Committee, the Solicitor-General indicated that there was no evidence that there was a real problem. The most telling evidence that we heard came from Stonewall, who said that there was no clear evidence that homophobic bullying in schools required this legislative solution and that it could be dealt with in other ways. Stonewall said that it campaigned for legislative change but only where there was an identifiable real-life mischief that required such change, and it was not convinced that it was necessary in this case.
	In Committee, the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon gave the example of two parents who were gay and had adopted a child who would find it difficult if they went to a school where homosexuality was taught to be sinful. I said that parents in that position would not choose to send their child to a faith school where that was the belief of the religion concerned; indeed, I said that that would be a completely crackers policy. In other circumstances, such as bullying between pupils, that is a matter to be dealt with by the school.

Evan Harris: I am intrigued by the way in which the hon. Gentleman is citing my argument. Is he saying that the best way to avoid the problem is for parents who fear that their child will be bullied to not choose schools where they might be bullied? That is a new line, even from the Conservative party, on parental choice. Surely the argument is that no school should countenance such behaviour so as to maximise the choice available to parents, especially those in the position that he describes.

Mark Harper: The hon. Gentleman is misrepresenting my remarks, I hope not deliberately. There are two specific situations here. If the child is being bullied by other children, then the right solution is for that to be dealt with by the school and the school authorities. The Solicitor-General made the very sensible point that in the state sector, there is clear guidance from the Department for Children, Schools and Families that it should be dealt with by the school. When the problem is between pupils, it is not appropriate for the law to be involved. The case that the hon. Gentleman is talking about is not really one of bullying but one in which a child whose parents or guardians are gay feels harassed by the school, presumably a faith school, teaching as part of its ethos that homosexuality or its practice is sinful. My point was that it would not be sensible for a parent in that situation to choose a faith school, knowing that they would be putting their child in that position. It would be crackers. It is not at all accurate for him to characterise that as my saying that people have to predict where their child will not be bullied when they choose schools.

Evan Harris: I can see the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, but I shall put my point in the language that he is using. Is he saying that parents who fear that their child will be harassed by being told that their parents' lifestyle is unacceptable or sinful should have less choice of school? They cannot choose their local state school if that risk exists. Would it not be better to have a provision outlawing harassment, so that faith schools had to work within the framework of non-harassment?

Mark Harper: I think the hon. Gentleman's argument is really about whether there should be faith schools. I have set out our view of his new clauses, which will give him an idea of how we will vote if he presses them. I believe I will have the support of my right hon. and hon. Friends if I do not prolong this part of the debate, given that we wish to cover a number of other matters.
	A number of new clauses and amendments, tabled by various Members, are about discrimination according to caste. Those are new clauses 10, 30 and 43 and amendments 2, 53, 187, 188, 192 and 193. I and a number of other Members raised the matter in Committee, and we took the line that we were not convinced that there was a serious existing problem in the UK. I suggested that if it were proved that there were, it might be possible to subsume protection against caste discrimination into one of the other protected characteristics. The Solicitor-General said that the Government had looked hard to see whether there was evidence of such discrimination, and that such evidence had not been brought before them. However, she said that they were continuing to examine whether there was a specific problem.

Jeremy Corbyn: There is a great deal of information and evidence about the presence of caste discrimination in this country, not least in the document produced by the Anti Caste Discrimination Alliance over the past few weeks, which is a significant study. It is time to put to rest the line that many people have taken that there is no evidence of caste discrimination-there is an enormous amount, and it is time that we addressed this scourge on the many people in our society who suffer from it.

Mark Harper: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. In a moment I shall draw attention to the information from the ACDA that I received just last week, and then I will listen carefully to the Members who have proposed the relevant new clauses and amendments. I was simply setting out what the Solicitor-General had told us, and I have not seen any evidence that the situation has moved on.
	It would be helpful if those who have tabled the new clauses and amendments explained how we can deal with the problem. Some have proposed a new protected characteristic and some propose adding caste protection to the race discrimination provisions, and it would help if they explained what other type of discrimination caste discrimination is most akin to. I have looked into it, and it clearly has some similarities with race in the sense that people are born with it and are unable to change it, but its origins are heavily linked to religion and the Hindu faith. I am not sure how well adding it to one of the other protected characteristics would deal with the matter. Equally, I am not terribly keen to start creating a large number of new protected characteristics, given that one of the central purposes of the Bill was to bring together a number of strands of discrimination and simplify legislation on them so that it can be enforced more effectively in practice. It may be that there is a good case for including caste as a protected characteristic, but there may also be a case for including a lot of other things. If we end up having a very large list of protected characteristics, this area of law will become ever more complex. However, I will listen with interest to those making those proposals.
	I said that I would speak briefly about the letter that Members received from the ACDA, which refers to a scoping study it carried out between August and October. Not being a statistician, I do not know how much weight one should give to that study. The organisation says that 300 people participated in an online questionnaire and that there were nine focus groups in England. It said that from that survey, there was clear evidence that the caste system had been imported into the UK with the Asian diaspora and that caste discrimination affected people in ways beyond personal choices, including in employment, education and the provision of services.
	ACDA said that based on the survey data, there may be 100,000 people in Britain who are affected by such discrimination. I do not know-I presume the Minister has had professional advice on this-whether an online survey in which 300 people participated and the findings of nine focus groups is sufficiently robust research to draw the conclusion that 100,000 people suffer such discrimination. If that is true, the House will want to look at it very seriously, but on the face of it, I am not sure one can draw that conclusion from the depth of that research. As I said, I am sure the Minister has had advice from officials and statisticians on whether it would be safe for the House to reply on that basis. I am sure she will remark on that when she responds.
	My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe, to whom I was not allowed to respond earlier, tabled amendment 196, which refers to the age discrimination provisions in the Bill. We welcome the introduction of measures to ban age discrimination, but we raised in Committee the fact that the provisions in the clauses on age discrimination, principally clause 192, which amendment 196 attempts to improve, are very wide powers, and that the vast majority of the detail was going to be brought forward by secondary legislation.
	My right hon. and learned Friend has a company in his constituency that would be affected by the measures, for which he will speak up very effectively later if there is time, but we raised its concerns, and those of a number of other organisations, in Committee. We asked whether the Bill would allow very sensible, worthwhile business models that give older people better terms and conditions, which we termed "good discrimination", for things such as holidays, leisure facilities and insurance products, and whether such models would be sufficiently recognised.
	We were concerned about that at the beginning of the Committee, but less concerned after the Minister published the Government's consultation on age discrimination, because it adequately recognised the concerns of those business organisations and asked for their responses. The consultation has now closed, but we have not yet seen those responses or the Government's response. The regulations that implement those age discrimination measures will be informed by the consultation and we will be looking closely at whether they accurately reflect the consultation and the concerns of those business organisations. Clearly, our support or otherwise is contingent on that. My right hon. and learned Friend may not have a chance to make these points, but I know he will be looking to the Minister for a clear assurance that the regulations will ensure that businesses that legitimately provide products based on the age of consumers will be able to continue. He and many who are employed in his constituency will welcome a clear response from the Minister on that.
	The final areas on which I want to touch briefly relate to religion. New clauses 31 and 32, the latter tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald, will-from the point of view of the Conservative party-be subject to free votes, so what I am about to say will be my personal views. I also have some questions for those who tabled the new clauses, the answers to which I will take into account when I cast my vote later. The two clauses are very similar in their drafting, although new clause 31 refers to care homes for the elderly and new clause 32 refers to adoption or fostering agencies.
	Both clauses specifically refer to voluntary care homes and voluntary agencies. How would that affect those agencies that take money from public funds? My view is that if a care home or adoption agency takes money from the taxpayer and provides a public service, it should do so in a non-discriminatory way. For example, if a voluntary care home has any clients who are paid for by the taxpayer, does that change the nature of that organisation and would it affect the impact of new clause 31?
	My second point refers to the drafting of the new clauses. Both specifically say that a care home or adoption agency would be able to restrict the provision of their services or facilities to a person on the grounds of their sexual orientation. If they were to restrict the provision of services, they would have to refer the person seeking them to another organisation that could provide services for them. That restriction could be imposed only if necessary to comply with the doctrine of the organisation or to avoid conflicting with the strongly held religious convictions of a significant number of the religion's followers. I am a little confused about that, because most of the religions-and, given the supporters of the amendments, we are largely talking about Christianity-do not have a problem with someone's sexual orientation, per se, but with the practising of that sexuality. Those religions also have a problem with those who have sex outside marriage, even if they are heterosexual, but the clauses refer only to sexual orientation. It would be helpful to know why they were drafted in that particular way.

Evan Harris: I understand that the hon. Gentleman is speaking for himself and that it is his view that if one is in receipt of public funds and delivering a public service, one should not discriminate, and that therefore, for example, a Catholic adoption agency should not say that it will not provide services to gay couples. On the same basis, is it right that a Catholic adoption agency, funded by the public and delivering a public service, should be able to say that it will not provide services to Jewish, Protestant or Muslim couples seeking to adopt?

Mark Harper: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall limit my remarks to the new clauses that are under consideration today, given that we are short of time. Otherwise, we would be in danger of widening the debate and I suspect that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would jump on me from a great height if I did so.
	Amendment 37 was tabled by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) and it refers to schedule 9 to the Bill and an exemption provided for religious organisations in employment matters. There is an interesting dispute here about whether the Government are changing the existing law. The provision in the Bill is about the definition of employment for the purposes of an organised religion, and the amendment would remove that definition from the Bill.
	There are two parts to the definition:
	"Employment is for the purposes of an organised religion only if the employment wholly or mainly involves...leading or assisting in the observance of liturgical or ritualistic practices of the religion, or...promoting or explaining the doctrine of the religion (whether to followers of the religion or to others)."
	Many Christian and other religious organisations are concerned that the definition is new, will change the law and narrow the scope of the exemption. They are concerned because they believe it will prevent them from using the exemption for a number of posts in their organisations where they are currently able to do so.

John Mason: The hon. Gentleman said that many posts would be excluded by the definition, but some people feel that all posts would be excluded. Let us consider the definition:
	"wholly or mainly involves...leading or assisting...liturgical or ritualistic practices...or...promoting or explaining the doctrine of the religion"
	Even a full-time priest, minister or pastor would not "mainly" be doing that, because much of their time is spent visiting the sick and perhaps with funerals and so on. In fact, therefore, the definition could exclude everybody.

Mark Harper: The hon. Gentleman, who served on the Public Bill Committee, anticipates some of my later remarks. Ministers and priests have written to say that they do not think that what they do would be accurately captured by the definition. On some areas, there is a dispute between the Government and organisations, but the Government have been clear about one thing: ministers, priests and those who lead worship in churches should be covered by the definition. However, many organisations are now concerned that even those positions would not be covered, so it would not even achieve what the Government hope.

Andrew Selous: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a double standard here? It seems to be in order for the Labour party to discriminate against committed Conservatives applying for a post as, for instance, director of a research department, so why should faith-based welfare organisations not have the same degree of free association, whether they are Christian or of any other religion? That is a fundamental principle, and it strikes me as odd that we exempt political parties and treat them in one way, but treat faith-based organisations completely differently.

Mark Harper: My hon. Friend makes a good point, and he will not be surprised to learn that it has been made by a number of those faith organisations that feel that they are being treated unfairly.
	When we raised that point in Committee-we discussed it at length-I think that the Solicitor-General's argument for the Government was that the provision did not change the existing law, but simply clarified the definition to save courts and tribunals having to do it themselves. Effectively, she said that it did not change the position. We probed and argued, and the more that I learned about it afterwards, the more time that I took and the more that I looked into it, the less convinced I was that she was right. I think that the definition narrows the scope of the law. That is why I have put my name to amendment 37 and why Conservative Members will be happy to support the hon. Member for Stroud if he presses it to a vote.

David Burrowes: Does my hon. Friend share the concern of a wide spread of Christian denominations, from the Church of England through to the Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches, which do not understand why the Government have departed from their position in the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003? In the 2004 Amicus case, the Government said that they were engaged in
	"striking a delicate balance between the employment rights of gay and lesbian people, and the right of religious groups to freedom of religion",
	and that they were
	"concerned it would lead to litigation in tribunals about the extent to which requirements dictated by doctrine or the religious convictions of followers could legitimately limit working for an organised religion".
	Is it not the case that the provisions will affect that balance and strike at the heart of religious liberty?

Mark Harper: My hon. Friend is right. I was just getting on to why we have ended up in this position, and from a European route too. The European Commission has issued a reasoned opinion that claims that the UK exemptions passed in 2003-the regulations to which my hon. Friend referred-are broader than allowed by the employment directive of 2000. Indeed, the Commission is effectively lobbying the House, in a way that I do not feel is entirely appropriate, by saying:
	"We welcome the proposed Equality Bill and hope that it will come into force quickly".
	The European Commission has no business telling the Parliament of the United Kingdom whether we should pass legislation. Frankly, that is none of its business. It would be interesting for the Solicitor-General to tell us whether the Government have indeed tightened the Bill in response to the Commission's reasoned opinion.

Evan Harris: Obviously.

Mark Harper: This is interesting, because I think that I am right in saying-the hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong-that he and I both think that the Government have narrowed the scope of the exemption. He welcomes that-if narrowing is indeed what the Government have done-whereas we do not; but interestingly, we both think that the narrowing has taken place. In Committee, the Solicitor-General held the view that there had been no narrowing.  [ Interruption. ] The right hon. and learned Lady repeats her view now from a sedentary position. However, I do not think that hon. Members will find that convincing, which is why it would be helpful to test the opinion of the House.

David Drew: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, seeing as we are discussing amendment 37 in some detail. Like him, I am concerned about the position of the European Commission, particularly as it would seem that the Commission did not formally publish what role it had played in trying to influence the Government. Only by a degree of investigation and chance did we discover what the Commission's perspective is, which is doubly unhelpful and a good reason why amendment 37 should be accepted in due course.

Mark Harper: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The European Commission openly said that it had written a reasoned opinion and sent it to the United Kingdom. However, I understand-I am sure that the Solicitor-General will correct me if I am wrong-that when various organisations have tried to get hold of a copy, officials from the Government Equalities Office have declined to let them have one on the grounds that such opinions are confidential to the Government. It is helpful that we now have a copy of that reasoned opinion from a source in Brussels, but it is disappointing that it was not released by the Government. It should be placed in the Library, so that all Members can see it. It would be helpful if the Solicitor-General can let me know when she responds to this debate-or now, if she wants to intervene-why it was felt necessary to keep that secret.
	I understand that the reasoned opinion states that the Government have given an undertaking to remedy the alleged defect that the European Commission says is in our existing law, but the Solicitor-General has just confirmed to the House that the law is not being changed at all. I do not see how we can square that circle. The view that the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon and I share-that the measure has been narrowed-is the right one. We might differ on how welcome that narrowing is, but what he and I have set out, as well as the Government's response to the European Commission, all appear to confirm that. If there has indeed been such a narrowing, as we think there has, we shall support amendment 37, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Stroud, which seeks to extract that definition from the Bill.

Evan Harris: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The nub of the issue is that the Government cannot have it both ways. They cannot tell the European Commission that they will comply, and thereby avoid infraction proceedings, by narrowing the scope of the measure that they say the Commission judges to be too wide, but at the same time tell us, with the other side of their face, that there is no narrowing at all. They cannot have it both ways. The reasoned opinion makes it clear that the Government have assured the Commission that what we have is the very narrowing that the Commission required.

Mark Harper: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that. This will obviously take some time and I apologise to the House for that, but it might be helpful for hon. Members to know that paragraph 19 of that reasoned opinion-reasoned opinion No. 226, on EC cases other than failure to notify measures-says:
	"The UK Government has informed the Commission that the new Equality Bill currently under discussion before the UK Parliament will amend this aspect of the law and bring UK law into line with the Directive."
	Assuming that the European Commission has correctly interpreted what it has been told by the British Government, I do not see how that interpretation can be true given what the Solicitor-General has told us-that this definition does not narrow the law. They cannot both be true: either the Government have misinformed the European Commission or the European Commission has been very confused. In that case, the Solicitor-General will be able to tell us and she will either have to get a letter winging its way immediately to the European Commission to put it straight or she will have to admit to the House that the provision does indeed narrow the exemption, which she has insisted today is not the case. In any event, we will listen to her explanation with great interest.
	Colleagues may feel that I have done this particular aspect of the provisions to death, so I shall briefly pick up a few points I made in response to the hon. Member for Glasgow, East (John Mason). Members will be pleased to know that I am coming to my final point, as I know others want to enter the debate. I remind them, however, that I did not draft the programme motion.
	I have had a number of letters from pastors and priests that have been passed on to me from various Christian organisations. I shall try to give a general sense of them rather than quote from them. The authors do not believe that their leadership role within their Churches falls within the definitions. Let me cite one from Spencer Shaw, the pastor of the Emmanuel Evangelical church in Chippenham. He makes the point that he works more than 50 hours a week and that although some of that time is spent leading corporate worship and teaching biblical doctrine, the larger proportion of his time is spent on other matters of running a church. He spends many hours each week in leadership meetings, working with other Churches, organising events, training staff and volunteers, visiting the sick, and listening to and encouraging people with problems. He also spends many hours in study, personal prayer and preparation. He says all those activities
	"are vital to the role of the Christian Minister and must be undertaken by someone whose beliefs, ethos and lifestyle are consistent with those of the church he leads."
	He does not feel-I have read his explanation of what his job involves-that he would fall within the terms of the definition in the Bill because he would not "wholly or mainly" spend his time on the two specified activities. If the definition does not even include people who lead worship in their churches, it seems to me that it is a faulty one.
	I could add a number of other examples, but I will not try the House's patience by reading them into the record. I am not at all convinced, however, that this definition is sound or that the Solicitor-Genera is giving us a straight answer about whether it changes the law. I hope that she is able to clear that up, as it does not accord with what the Government have told the European Commission. On that note, let me make it clear that Conservative Members will support the hon. Member for Stroud if, as he has indicated, he presses his amendment to a Division.

David Drew: This will be a short speech, as we have already covered much of the ground. I intend to press amendment 37 to the vote. The amendment is straightforward in the sense that it simply removes paragraph 2(8) from schedule 9. What those who feel strongly about this want to see is effectively a return to the status quo. We have just had an argument about whether and why the Government's interpretation is narrow. The simple answer is that even if we argued crucially that ministers as part of organised religion have certain protections-in some cases those protections have been found wanting by the courts under existing legislation-others involved in religion do not. It is absolutely right to protect people when they are going about doing something that in any other walk of life they would feel entirely free to do.
	Several examples have been given. The hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) mentioned political parties. We saw a real live example involving them when a peer who had taken the Labour Whip until the last election had it removed from him because he had happened to make a voluntary donation to a friend who was a member of another party. Some of us may have misgivings about that, but it happened, and that individual had no recourse because he was seen to have been disloyal to the political party that he served as a parliamentarian.
	I believe, as do the other Members who signed up to amendment 37, that that safeguard would not apply to religion, and we feel strongly that there is a need for protection. We are not asking for a change in the law; we are merely asking for the status quo to be reinforced. It is irrelevant to us whether the narrowing of the definition is a result of the Government's own inclination or of pressure from the European Union. The simple fact is that if sub-paragraph (8) is removed, we shall feel that the position has been clarified.
	This issue has been a source of debate not only here but in the Public Bill Committee, on which I, like others, was pleased to serve. To be fair to the Solicitor-General, I should say that we were given some clarification, and some of us felt that it would go a long way towards making clear that people in organised religions would be given rights and protections. However, the Government seem to have moved in the other direction and weakened those protections, which is why I tabled amendment 37.
	The strength of public opinion was demonstrated in a letter sent to the Minister for Women and Equality saying that members of many Churches and other religions-for this concerns not just the Christian community, but a number of religions-felt that if the provision were passed in its current form, it would bring about a deleterious change that would threaten to prevent those involved in organised religion from going about their everyday business.
	I hope that the Government will think again and will agree to take us back to where we thought we were-or, at least, the position to which we thought they were moving in Committee-rather than taking an even harder line and restricting even further the freedom of operation of people who, in good faith, pursue their religious convictions. I tabled the amendment because I believe in freedom of conscience. I do not believe that there should be a right to discriminate against people who are, for instance, gay or disabled, but I do believe that people have a right to work with fellow members of their faith. I believe that that right should be recognised and should not be undermined by people who come in and say-as happens too often nowadays-that they want exactly the same rights as members of organised religions whose faith they may not share and whose goals they may not wish to pursue.
	I hope that the Solicitor-General will consider amendment 37 carefully. It seems to have attracted support from both sides of the House. I hope that, even at this late stage-I am sure that those in the other place will give the amendment careful attention if it is not accepted here-we can obtain clarification and stop the narrowing of the rights of members of organised religions. I should be delighted, in due course, to press the amendment to a vote.

Evan Harris: There are a lot of amendments in this group, and I know that many Members wish to speak to them, so I will be as brief as possible, especially as much of the necessary ground has been covered in the previous two speeches. While I do not agree with what the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) has said, I certainly think that he and the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) have a right to have a debate. I also hope that the House will recognise that I have tried on more than 10 occasions to secure adequate debating time for the Report stage of this Bill. I got several assurances from the Leader of the House that there would be proper consideration and scrutiny not only of Government amendments-there are five more groups of Government amendments that we will not get anywhere near scrutinising-but of other important amendments that divide the parties, and that cannot be dealt with on Division in Committee as it is not possible for the breadth of opinion that exists to be expressed in Committee. It is nothing short of disgraceful that we are in this position now. A second day is all that would have been required for us to make sufficient progress.
	I accept that the Speaker has done what he can by providing large groups that enable us to touch on a number of issues, but the Leader of the House will go down in history as having organised things in such a way that more amendments and new clauses than ever before have fallen without scrutiny in this place. The Government will find it more difficult to get their business through the upper House because of this failure to give us the opportunity to debate these matters, and that is counter-productive for the Government.

Vera Baird: The facts are very straightforward: no Whips from any Opposition party asked our Whips for a second day. Nobody at all from either main Opposition party has ever approached me asking for a second day either, and therefore, by default, one day has been allocated. If anybody had wanted more, they only had to ask and we would have considered their request. The letter from the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper) that caused-

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. and learned Lady, but the point she is making is a debate for another day given that we now have only three quarters of an hour left. I am sure this issue will be returned to in other ways later.

Evan Harris: I understand your concern, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I can only say in reply that, as reported in  Hansard, I asked the Leader of the House on 25 June whether she would open negotiations-

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This does not help either. Perhaps Dr. Harris will now address his remarks to the amendments before the House.

Evan Harris: I want to deal first with new clause 7-and new clause 8, which is closely related-which calls for protection from harassment on the grounds of sexual orientation in education and the delivery of public services. Protection already exists in those areas in respect of other grounds, so it is necessary also to protect vulnerable individuals on these grounds.
	The key point about people in education and using public services is that they are a captive population. They cannot choose another hotel, another bed and breakfast or another retailer; they rely on public services, and in schools, they are particularly vulnerable. Therefore, all one needs to do to make the case for this provision is to show that there is a bullying and harassment problem in those places and that the new clause will do the job in providing protection, just as the existing provisions, such as for protection from racial harassment, do their job.
	It is also necessary to ensure that there is no undue infringement of free speech, however. I hope that hon. Members will accept that I am always sensitive to arguments about that, which is why my proposed definition of harassment in relation to sexual orientation is, even for schools, slightly narrower than the existing provision for sexual orientation harassment in employment, as it requires both a violation of dignity and the creation of an environment that is
	"intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive".
	A number of studies have shown that there is harassment on the grounds of sexual orientation. A European Union study showed:
	"Discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation...becomes an important issue for secondary schools...The main problems experienced by LGB individuals include: harassment and bullying...insulting and degrading treatment during classes...Fellow pupils may threaten or subject LGB pupils to verbal and physical abuse in the classroom and on school grounds".
	That evidence is cited by the Equality and Human Rights Commission in support of including a measure such as this in the Bill.
	In addition, the EHRC's briefing material states:
	"Stonewall found that of the 1,100 lesbian and gay people interviewed in 2007 for The School Report:
	Almost two thirds...of young lesbian, gay and bisexual pupils have experienced direct bullying. 75 per cent. of young gay people attending faith schools have experienced homophobic bullying."
	The idea, promulgated by the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper), for whom I have a great deal of time otherwise, that the solution is for parents to choose schools where pupils will not be harassed is astonishing. Would he make the same argument about racial harassment-that argument could be made, too? That is otiose and odious in principle, but the idea that this provision should apply in areas where there is no choice of school, or that people who are vulnerable to harassment should have a smaller choice of schools because they have to avoid the schools where harassment takes place, is bizarre. In the Public Bill Committee I asked the representatives of religious organisations whether anything in the way in which they deliver the curriculum, be it on religious education or anything else, amounted to the creation of an environment that was hostile, degrading, threatening or offensive, and they said that there was not. They said that that was not part of what they do, so I do not think that this provision will in any way hinder what faith schools can do. In fact, it is not about faith schools; it is about all schools.

Andrew Selous: I speak as a governor of a voluntary controlled state school in my constituency. Is it not the case that all schools, faith schools or otherwise, take all bullying and all harassment extremely seriously? None of them is negligent about it, so why do we need a new provision? Is this not dealt with already?

Evan Harris: No, it is not, because protection from harassment on the grounds of sexual orientation is not available in school as it is in employment. If schools had policies sufficient to ensure that this was not a problem, as the hon. Gentleman and I agree they should, we would not be turning to the law. However, the evidence that I have just set out for him, which is well established, is that young people who are lesbian, gay or bisexual or who are perceived as such do experience harassment. It was found that 97 per cent. of pupils hear other insulting homophobic remarks such as "poof", "dyke" and so on, and less than a quarter-23 per cent.-of young gay people have been told that homophobic bullying is wrong in their school. It was the hon. Member for Forest of Dean who seemed to say that this was about faith schools. I am not making that point, because this is about all schools, as it is a current problem for all schools.

John Mason: I am against all bullying in all schools, as I am sure all other hon. Members are. The hon. Gentleman has cited high figures for certain types of bullying, but does he accept that there are high figures on almost every other kind of bullying too? The level of bullying faced by religious people is potentially even higher than that faced by the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community.

Evan Harris: The hon. Gentleman will see that new clause 9 contains a provision to extend protection from harassment on the grounds of religion, on an even narrower definition in order to preserve the free speech that is even more greatly engaged there. It would not make provision in respect of an "offensive environment" because people can easily be offended, as I understand it, on the grounds of religion. So that is not an argument for not having the protection. The argument for having the protection is the mischief that exists. That is a view-I am not going to go into more evidence, because we need to move on-supported by not only the EHRC, but the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Paragraphs 114 to 118 of its thick report on this Bill, which contains 112 recommendations, clearly stated that it wanted protection against harassment to be extended to the sexual orientation ground and indeed to the transgender ground-the gender identity ground, which does not currently exist in schools for a similar reason.

David Howarth: I have had extensive contact over the past few years with organisations that deal with bullying. Their evidence shows that homophobic bullying is second in incidence only to bullying on the grounds of appearance.

Evan Harris: We recognise that there is a problem. This is protected ground in employment. Why should vulnerable people in school not have the same rights to protection on the grounds of harassment that people have in employment? The Equality and Diversity Forum also supports the provision of protection from harassment in schools and public services.
	I accept that new clause 9, which deals with religion, is more controversial. The Joint Committee on Human Rights has not expressed an opinion, so I would not seek to divide the House at this stage on the question of harassment on the grounds of religion. I would point out to hon. Members, however, that the definition there is narrower and, of course, protection already exists in employment. It seems to those on the Liberal Democrat Benches that there should be some protection in schools.
	Let me deal, if I may, with caste discrimination. This has already been mentioned by the hon. Member for Forest of Dean, so I shall not spend too much time on it, but it is clear that there is a problem. If even one person suffers discrimination, let alone a small percentage of people from that background, it makes sense, now that we have a Bill-after 12 years-that gives us the opportunity to make it a protected ground, to seize the moment. If there is not a problem, such a provision will not be used. To come back and have to await further primary legislation is not seizing the moment, if 12 years can be described as a moment. The problem with the Government saying that there is no evidence is that, in their attempt to find evidence, they consulted only 19 organisations-a figure that is narrow by anyone's terms-all of which were organisations that condone the caste system. It was therefore not a surprise, as we said in Committee, that they said that there was not a problem.
	The Anti Caste Discrimination Alliance has done the research and its report shows-I would say that that was good evidence-that caste discrimination is rife in the UK, with more than half of those from traditionally lower status Asian backgrounds finding themselves victims of prejudice and abuse. How can we test this in the courts if there is no basis on which to do so? I do not know why there is a sudden threshold of x many thousand, but even if there were that threshold, I think that it has been met.

Jeremy Corbyn: Will the hon. Gentleman also concede that one of the problems is that people of lower caste who are discriminated against in opportunities, housing, jobs and a whole range of other things are often very isolated and very poor, and have no access to lawyers or to any independent advice? Putting something in the Bill would at least offer the opportunity for making a serious case on behalf of people who are suffering in silence with no obvious access to any kind of legal redress.

Evan Harris: I agree. It would be a great pity if we did not take the opportunity to tackle the problem in the Bill. I do not think that it is an ever-growing list-there are not lots of extra grounds. This is one specific ground where there is clearly potential for harm and evidence of discrimination and harassment.
	New clause 18 is an important new clause that would seek to define clearly in statute, and not just in case law, that discrimination against someone on the grounds of a manifestation of their sexual orientation-such as sex outside marriage, which is the only option that gay people have-is discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. That was made clear in the Amicus case, but, as we heard, there is doubt about this because the hon. Member for Forest of Dean asked that question in respect of the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald. It is a live question and many organisations told us in evidence that they thought that they would be allowed to discriminate, not on the grounds of sexual orientation, which is not allowed, but on the grounds of sex outside marriage.
	Let us be clear that that is discrimination, because the proportion of gay people who can meet that condition is zero and the proportion of heterosexual people able to meet that condition will always be more than zero, because they can get married. That is discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. The Minister said in Committee that she agreed that it was. Making it clear in the Bill will solve all the problems of people believing that they can get away with using such behavioural conditions to get around the ban on sexual orientation discrimination. It will also prevent religion being used as a proxy for such discrimination, by someone saying that one cannot be an orthodox, or proper, member of whatever the religion is if one's private life does not comply with the requirement to have sex only inside marriage, for example.
	New clause 19, which is supported by the Joint Committee on Human Rights and is therefore important, asks simply that discrimination by association and perception, which is barred in case law, be expressly covered by the Bill. That would help carers and people who are perceived to be members of protected groups.
	On the subject raised by the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Stroud, it was useful that the hon. Member for Forest of Dean said from the Conservative Front Bench that we have to comply with the EU directive. Indeed, we were supposed to do that when we passed the 2003 employment regulations. The trade union Amicus and others took the case to the High Court, before the Bill, to argue that the exemption that we are talking about was too wide in respect of sexual orientation. Although that case was lost, the judge said that it would have to be read narrowly.
	A complaint was then made to the European Commission, by the National Secular Society, I believe-I declare my interest in that respect-that the 2003 regulations did not faithfully comply with the directive because the exemption they gave was wider than the exemptions envisaged in article 4(1) and (2). It is clear from what has been revealed that the Commission has found that the exemption is too wide, and requires the Government to narrow it-or perhaps it requires them to clarify the matter. If they would place the reasoned opinion in the Library, there would not be the current opacity and secrecy, and we would be able to see clearly why they do not believe that this is a narrowing.
	There should be no doubt that unless someone is involved in liturgy, proselytising or other activities set out in the schedule, they should be protected from discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. It is wrong that people doing youth work who are employed by a religious organisation should be drummed out of their jobs because of their sexual orientation, or be made to be celibate.

John Mason: The hon. Gentleman uses the term "drummed out". Does he accept that there is a difference between recruiting someone and dealing with them in the way mentioned by the hon. Member for Stroud when they have changed their position once in employment?

Evan Harris: The directive states that the characteristic has to be
	"a genuine and determining occupational requirement".
	Sexual orientation is not a genuine and determining occupational requirement for youth workers, secretaries or care takers. Religious organisations can say that it is, and I support them in this, in respect of
	"leading or assisting in the observance of liturgical or ritualistic practices of the religion,"
	or
	"promoting or explaining the doctrine of the religion".
	I accept the point that has been made that even if they spend most of their time doing pastoral work and do not run many services, they should be covered by that provision. If that is the issue, perhaps clarification is needed. There is no difference between us on those grounds.

Alan Beith: Does my hon. Friend realise that many youth workers in churches have as their primary activity the explanation of the doctrines of the religion to those with whom they work? Where do they fall in his understanding of the definition?

Evan Harris: If their job is promoting and explaining the doctrine of religion, and if their employment wholly or mainly involves doing that, theirs is a teaching role rather than one of organising activities and doing other pastoral work that youth workers do. I think that such a role would fall clearly within paragraph 2(8)(b) of schedule 9, and my right hon. Friend should be reassured. It is not in our interests to interfere with the right of religious organisations, within this exemption, to ensure that those promoting and explaining the doctrine are not subject to gender or sexual orientation requirements. I hope that he accepts my good faith on that issue.

Andrew Selous: The hon. Gentleman keeps returning to sexual orientation, but does not he understand that the current law has already been used against Christian-based welfare organisations that wanted to employ someone who shared their faith? They were challenged and lost their case. This issue is much wider than sexual orientation, and touches on issues such as freedom of association and the ability of faith-based organisations to pick someone of that faith to carry out work within that organisation.

Evan Harris: Let us be clear: religious organisations have far more scope to restrict employment to people who share their religion than is covered by this part of the schedule. I accept that the exclusion in respect of discrimination in employment on the grounds of religion is now narrow, but we are talking about sexual orientation. That is separate from religion, and one cannot say that a person is of the wrong religion because of sexual orientation, except where that is involved in the two practices set out in the new clauses.

David Drew: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, although we disagree about whether sexual orientation is the only issue here. However, does he agree that Mr. Justice Richards did not say in his judgment that the narrowing of the definition by the European Commission was necessarily the right way to go? Clearly it is a complicated judgment, but the High Court is at variance with the Commission, and that is why some of us question why the Commission's opinion is considered to be sacrosanct.

Evan Harris: If we sign up to a treaty we have to abide by it, and the Commission gets legal advice about infractions on our part. Mr. Justice Richards said that in his opinion a narrow reading of the Government's approach could be in compliance with the treaty, but that was his opinion and he is only one judge. If the Government wanted to resist this proposal, they could take the matter to the European Court of Justice in Brussels and see where they got to. It looks as though they have chosen not to do that, so I shall move on to the final groups of amendments, which deal with schedule 23 and discrimination in the delivery of goods and services on the grounds of religion.
	My colleagues and I have tabled amendments 199 and 200, which specifically propose that an organisation with a religious ethos that is delivering public services-and which is therefore in receipt of public funding, or which is part of a structure delivering public services or under a contract to do so-should not discriminate against users on the grounds of their religion. If such an organisation were providing a care home, say, the home may appeal particularly to followers of that religion, but the organisation could not hang a sign on the door excluding people from other religions.
	For example, a Jewish care home could not exhibit a sign saying, "No Muslims". A sign like that would not be acceptable in racial terms, and it is not necessary or acceptable in religious terms, because the organisation involved is providing a public service. My amendment 199 would restrict an organisation's freedom to discriminate in that way when delivering a public service.
	It is the same with adoption. I disagree with the new clause tabled by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald: I think that it is wrong for people delivering public services to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation, and the same applies to religion. If it is wrong for Catholic adoption agencies to say that no gays need apply, it is also wrong for them to say that no Protestants need apply either. It is not good enough to have a referral system, because such a system does not deal with discrimination where it is unacceptable. The problem with buses in Alabama was not dealt with by allowing companies to say, "We discriminate, but don't worry, the next bus along won't discriminate against you."
	An organisation delivering a public service has a relatively captive population, and people should not have to shop around to find a place where their dignity will be respected and they will not suffer discrimination. The real danger is that an unamended clause 145, which deals with public sector duty as it extends to religion, could lead to a balkanisation of public services. By that I mean that more and more such services will be delivered by organisations with a religious ethos because local authorities will feel themselves under a duty to allow every group to have their own service. The result will be that the services provided will be discriminatory.
	That is not the way we want to go. We want to build social cohesion and, although some organisations will appeal to the religion of certain of their users, we should not allow them to discriminate in those people's favour. In fact, it would be healthy for a halal meals-on-wheels service to ask anyone, "Would you like to enjoy the halal service that we're providing on behalf of the council?"

John Mason: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman giving way again, but will he clarify his proposal? Is he saying that schools, for example, should exhibit the same grey sameness, with all of them exactly the same as all the others? Is it not equally valid for a local authority-such as Glasgow, for example-to provide Catholic, non-denominational, Jewish or Muslim schools for families who want them? Is that not an equally good way to provide public services?

Evan Harris: There are two questions: whether there should be a variety of providers delivering education or other public services, and whether they should discriminate. Plenty of faith schools do not discriminate. So why should one be allowed to discriminate in respect of either employment or the users of services, or pupils, on the grounds of religion? That brings me to amendments 14 and 15, which deal with faith schools.

Sammy Wilson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Evan Harris: I will do so in a moment; I want to deal with this point, and then make sure that I finish very quickly.
	If the Government are right that they need to restrict the provision in schedule 9 to comply with article 4.2 of the European directive, it is clear that the faith school provisions in sections 58 and 60 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 have a total exemption from the Bill. Amendments 14 and 15 would deal with that. The Bill says that, regardless of the Bill, schools can do anything under sections 58 and 60 in terms of discriminating against people on the grounds of their religion-or, indeed, their lifestyle-as schools think they can. That is clearly outside the scope of the directive, and I think that the Government know that it is challengeable on those grounds.
	It is wrong that that exemption should be specified in the Bill. Why do the Government not remove the exemption in schedule 22 and just ensure that faith schools operate under schedule 9, and have to make that case? That is why we propose amendments 14 and 15. I think that time will show that when a teacher is sacked for being of the wrong religion, or no religion, by the local state school employer that happens to be a faith school, the school will lose and we will be back to square one in needing to amend the legislation.

Sammy Wilson: The hon. Gentleman has indicated that he has no difficulty with faith schools, but he suggested earlier that faith schools should not be allowed to promote a certain belief that people felt harassed by-and, indeed, that they should be covered by this legislation. He cannot have it both ways, can he?

Evan Harris: Schools cannot have it both ways. The faith organisations that run schools cannot tell the Public Bill Committee that they would never deliver anything, even their RE, in a way that creates an environment-this is the definition of harassment-that is demeaning, degrading, intimidating, offensive or humiliating. They say that they do not do that. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways and say that they need to be able to do that, when the schools are saying that they do not need to. If we get a chance to vote on new clause 7 and the other amendments in this group, I urge the House to support them.

Katy Clark: It is a pleasure to speak to amendment 53 and new clause 35, on the Scottish Gypsy Traveller community. There are approximately 25,000 Scottish Gypsy Travellers, and it has been far from clear for a very long time whether they are protected by current legislation-in particular, the Race Relations Act 1976. There is legal precedent in relation both to Irish Travellers and Romany Gypsies. The position has been far less clear in relation to the Scottish Gypsy Traveller community. I have therefore been asked by that community to bring this issue to the House today, to ask for clarification on its position.
	I should be interested to hear the Solicitor-General's view on whether that community would be protected by the provisions on race in the Bill and, indeed, whether that amendment is necessary. To date, with the exception of one employment tribunal decision that has not been contested and was only decided by Aberdeen tribunal last year, most of the advice has been that the community could not necessarily rely on the 1976 Act.
	The community goes back to at least the 12th century in Scotland. It is a very distinct community, with its own language. I hope that no Division will be required on this matter, but given that the community has suffered historic discrimination, I would be grateful to the Solicitor-General if she responded either now or in her closing remarks.

Michael Howard: I shall speak to amendment 196 in my name. I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests; to the fact, which will be all to obvious to the House, that I am over 50 years old, which is relevant to the remarks that I am about to make; and to my very considerable constituency interest in this matter, in view of the fact that Saga is the biggest employer in my constituency.
	I do not want to take up the time of the House unnecessarily. If the Solicitor-General is able to give me now an explicit assurance-I am sure she will have looked at amendment 196-that the provisions in that amendment will be written into the Bill or be covered entirely by secondary legislation, which was what the Government indicated they were minded to do in their consultation paper, I would be happy to sit down now and allow others to use the time that remains.

Vera Baird: indicated dissent.

Michael Howard: Alas, the Solicitor-General is not prepared to help the House in that way, so I fear I must continue.
	Very many of my constituents' jobs depend on the continuing success of Saga. That continuing success is called into question by the provisions of the Bill as it stands. Saga has built its highly successful business on niche marketing and exclusively servicing the needs of people aged 50 and over. Last year it provided a range of services to some 2.7 million people. Its robust and highly popular brand is based on trust, quality, dependability and value for older people. It focuses on understanding and then designing bespoke services to meet the changing needs and demands of its target market of people aged over 50 in the UK, a demographic group consisting of about half the electorate, and forecast to grow from 21 million today to 25 million by 2020. It does not design or market products and services to other age groups.
	Saga, of course, welcomes the principles behind the Bill, as do I, and supports the measures to combat unfair discrimination that denies people the ability to live life to the full, but as I say, the Bill as it stands risks negatively affecting its customers' ability to buy the holidays that they want and the financial and other services that they need at a competitive price. Although I refer in these remarks to Saga, I have no doubt that other companies will suffer in a similar fashion if the Bill is not amended or secondary legislation is not introduced.
	Saga's insurance business, for example, if forced to offer premiums to all age groups, would become less competitive for the over-50s because they would have to bear the extra costs of quotations for the under-50s. Understanding older savers means that Saga can offer better terms. Its holiday business currently serves only the over-50s, and the popularity and enjoyment of its holidays depends in part on their being exclusive to the over-50s, rather than open to all age groups.
	Specialist advice services for long-term care funding and other services such as Saga Independent Living, which offers home care services, provide relevant and targeted training for staff that concentrates on the particular needs of elderly clients, such as special dementia training. It could not offer the service to all age groups without impairing the bespoke and tailored service that it has developed.
	Research suggests-I will not go into the details of the research, although I have it available-that people are perfectly happy for there to be special offers and products tailored for particular age groups, such as discounted tickets for cinema or leisure facilities, cheap days at DIY stores, concessionary rates for hairdressing and so on. Indeed, the Government themselves seem to follow those principles. The enhanced individual savings account allowances for older people in the 2009 Budget, and public transport travel concessions such as the national free bus pass and the older person's or younger person's railcard bear witness to the fact that the principle is accepted by Government themselves.
	In their Green Paper the Government responded to the points put by Saga in the consultation exercise by setting out three tests for any legislation on age discrimination. They said that
	"it must be a proportionate response to a real problem and not create unnecessary burdens on the private, public or voluntary sectors;
	it must not have the unintended consequence of prohibiting positive benefits for either younger or older people, such as youth clubs or clubs for older people, holidays catering for people of particular ages, or concessions and discounts which help younger or older people;"
	and
	"it must pass a 'common sense' test."
	The Green Paper sensibly and specifically accepted the desirability of niche marketing. It said:
	"There will always be a need for age-specific facilities and services."
	Indeed, it said- [ Interruption. ] I am very happy to give way to the Solicitor-General, because she looks as though she is about to rise.

Vera Baird: As I listen to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I find that he is not saying anything that I disagree with at all. The only issue between us is that none of those provisions will go into the Bill. The way forward is either secondary legislation, following on from the consultation that he talked about and the relevant basic principles, or guidance. I am happy to write to him in more detail if he wishes, but I do not think that any provision for which he advocates inclusion in the Bill will be missing from the guidance. We think that they are not appropriate for the Bill; they need the flexibility of being in a lower order.

Michael Howard: I am very grateful to the Solicitor-General for that, but at the outset of my remarks I offered her a choice: put the provision either in the Bill or in secondary legislation. Guidance would not be enough, but secondary legislation certainly would be.

Vera Baird: I am sorry-clearly, I was being spoken to by someone else at the same time. I thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that if we put the provision in the Bill, that would be sufficient. However, we will not put it in the Bill. We intend, probably, to put it in secondary legislation, but I cannot be absolutely specific and say that it will not be in guidance. None the less, I am sure that we will capture all the benefits to which he refers, because they are exactly the exceptions that we want to make.

Michael Howard: I am grateful to the Solicitor-General for that, but she must understand that the continued uncertainty causes very great difficulty for businesses as they try to plan ahead. I am prepared to accept the difficulties that might arise from putting what is necessary in the Bill, but I hope that, on consideration, she will be able to give me an explicit assurance that secondary legislation will cover my point. If she can, I shall not utter another word or take up another moment of the House's time this evening.

Vera Baird: The objective is the same, but we will not put it in the Bill. As I said, I cannot tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman at the moment whether the character of the business will be secondary legislation or guidance, so he may feel that he has to talk. However, we have met Saga; we understand the problems; and we will produce in January a document that makes the position absolutely clear. That is as much as I can say, but I hope it is enough.

Michael Howard: Then I must, I am afraid, add a sentence or two. The Solicitor-General says that she understands the problem, but the problem will not be met by guidance. The law in this land is not determined by the Government's guidance; it is determined by legislation, either primary or secondary. We hear this time after time from the Government, but it simply will not do for them to say, "We will deal with this problem by guidance." I have made my point; I hope that the Solicitor-General and the Government will reconsider; and I hope that, if not on Third Reading, then when the legislation goes to another place, they will at least be able to provide an explicit assurance that that point will be covered by secondary legislation.

Rob Marris: I associate my remarks with those of the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) on caste. Caste-based discrimination is wrong, and if we recognise it as such we should legislate; we should not wait for the evidence. The Government say that they wish to wait for the evidence and have commissioned, or are about to, some research into the extent of caste-based discrimination in the United Kingdom. That discrimination should form a 10th strand under the Bill. I should like the Solicitor-General to assure me if she can that, if the research demonstrates a problem of caste-based discrimination in the United Kingdom, the Government will introduce legislation at an early date to deal with that discrimination, which I and many of my colleagues are convinced exists.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call Miss Ann Widdecombe.

Ann Widdecombe: Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am almost tempted to say, "Hallelujah!" because I did not think it was going to happen.

Jeremy Corbyn: Don't waste time.

Ann Widdecombe: I will not waste time. I shall speak to amendment 32, standing in my name, and to amendment 31, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Jim Dobbin), who apologises for not being able to be here today.
	I believe it is fundamental to a democratic society that nobody should be obliged to affirm, participate in, make money out of or promote something that is directly contrary to their conscience or to their religious belief. There is no way that the state should ever compel somebody actively to facilitate something that is against their conscience. Other than in the most extraordinary or deeply extreme circumstances-for example, where there are international hostilities and conscription of the populace-a democratic society recognises the right of people to say, "I will not do that because it is against my conscience."
	Similarly, a democratic society recognises the right of organisations and groups of people to get together and to set themselves up for the purposes of carrying out something that is based on a community of their belief, which can mean providing services based on that belief. A Catholic adoption agency is set up to place children-sometimes very hard-to-place children-with families, and it is against Catholic teaching, for example, to recognise homosexual unions as equivalent to marriage. By obliging, or attempting to oblige, a Catholic adoption agency to place children with homosexual couples we are effectively suppressing the free practice of religious belief. I have been contacted by a very small Catholic adoption agency which, despite being small, places 10 very hard-to-place children with families each year. Having been in existence for some 40 years, it has placed hundreds of children with families. That agency now says, and we should all be aware of it:
	"The Charity has suspended the recruitment of new prospective adoptive parents to ensure that the Charity is not in breach of the Regulations or in breach of the tenets of the Church. The Charity cannot continue this suspension of service and will be forced to cease to provide Adoption Services."
	That charity is not alone. Westminster Children's Society has closed. Catholic Care is going to close. Other societies are trying to fight but are being defeated in the courts. Only in Scotland has one Catholic agency managed to get a ruling from the court that enables it to continue to place children in accordance with the tenets of the Church. The only other survivor at the moment is an evangelical adoption agency in the north-east that is fighting its corner and saying that it will continue to place children in accordance with the principles that it holds. Of course, Catholic adoption agencies may well supply services to local authorities, but local authorities choose to buy those services; they are not compelled to do so. The adoption agency should therefore not be compelled to go against its tenets. It is not saying, "We want to continue to receive public funding." It is saying, "We want to continue to be able to place children according to the principles that our religion teaches." That is what we are preventing it from doing in law, in Britain, in the 21st century.
	A free society should accommodate beliefs and respect the right of minorities to hold those beliefs, set up organisations and live their lives according to those beliefs, particularly when they are based not on rejecting a person for being something but on what they actually do. The agency is refusing to place children with homosexual couples who have formed a union that the Church teaches to be wrong. Similarly, for care homes, the problem is obliging the Church to provide double rooms in which unions may take place that are against Catholic teaching. It is not the individual-
	 Debate interrupted (Programme Order, 11 May 2009).
	 The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83E), That the clause be read a Second time.
	 Question agreed to.
	 New clause 41 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
	 The Deputy Speaker then put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E).

New Clause 42
	 — 
	Adjustments to common parts in Scotland

'(1) The Scottish Ministers may by regulations provide that a disabled person is entitled to make relevant adjustments to common parts in relation to premises in Scotland.
	(2) The reference in subsection (1) to a disabled person is a reference to a disabled person who-
	(a) is a tenant of the premises,
	(b) is an owner of the premises, or
	(c) is otherwise entitled to occupy the premises,
	and uses or intends to use the premises as the person's only or main home.
	(3) Before making regulations under subsection (1) the Scottish Ministers must consult a Minister of the Crown.
	(4) Regulations under subsection (1) may, in particular-
	(a) prescribe things which are, or which are not, to be treated as relevant adjustments;
	(b) prescribe circumstances in which the consent of an owner of the common parts is required before a disabled person may make an adjustment;
	(c) provide that the consent to adjustments is not to be withheld unreasonably;
	(d) prescribe matters to be taken into account, or to be disregarded, in deciding whether it is reasonable to consent to adjustments;
	(e) prescribe circumstances in which consent to adjustments is to be taken to be withheld;
	(f) make provision about the imposition of conditions on consent to adjustments;
	(g) make provision as to circumstances in which the sheriff may make an order authorising a disabled person to carry out adjustments;
	(h) make provision about the responsibility for costs arising (directly or indirectly) from an adjustment;
	(i) make provision about the reinstatement of the common parts to the condition they were in before an adjustment was made;
	(j) make provision about the giving of notice to the owners of the common parts and other persons;
	(k) make provision about agreements between a disabled person and an owner of the common parts;
	(l) make provision about the registration of information in the Land Register of Scotland or the recording of documents in the Register of Sasines relating to an entitlement of a disabled person or an obligation on an owner of the common parts;
	(m) make provision about the effect of such registration or recording;
	(n) make provision about who is to be treated as being, or as not being, a person entitled to occupy premises otherwise than as tenant or owner.
	(5) In this section-
	"common parts" means, in relation to premises, the structure and exterior of, and any common facilities within or used in connection with, the building or part of a building which includes the premises but only in so far as the structure, exterior and common facilities are not solely owned by the owner of the premises;
	"relevant adjustments" means, in relation to a disabled person, alterations or additions which are likely to avoid a substantial disadvantage to which the disabled person is put in using the common parts in comparison with persons who are not disabled.'.- (Lyn Brown.)
	 Brought up, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 3
	 — 
	Mandatory pay audits

'(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed the Secretary of State shall by regulations require designated employers to conduct a pay audit and to publish information relating to the pay of its employees for the purpose of showing whether there are differences in the pay of male and female employees.
	(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) regulations made pursuant to subsection (1) shall require designated employers to publish information including-
	(a) the average hourly pay of male workers and the average hourly pay of female workers within its employment;
	(b) in respect of each role within the organisation-
	(i) the average pay awarded to workers engaged in the role;
	(ii) the percentage of men and women engaged in that role;
	(iii) the gap, if any, between the average hourly pay of male and female employees in that role; and
	(iv) the average length of service of men and women engaged in that role; and
	(c) information identifying-
	(i) any description of activities carried out in the course of employment with the employer by any group of workers who are wholly or mainly women;
	(ii) any descriptions of activities carried out in the course of employment with the employer by any group of workers who are wholly or mainly men;
	(iii) the relative values of the descriptions of activities falling within paragraph (c)(i) and paragraph (c)(ii); and
	(iv) in relation to descriptions of activities within subsection (c)(i) and subsection (c)(ii) which are judged to be of equal value to each other, the average hourly pay of male workers and average hourly pay of female workers carrying on those activities.
	(3) For the purposes of this section, "pay" means the ordinary basic or minimum wage or salary and any other consideration, whether in cash or kind, which the worker receives directly or indirectly, in respect of his employment, from his employer and includes the cost to the employer of-
	(a) any pensions contributions paid by the employer in respect of the worker,
	(b) any bonus or other performance related or incentive payment, and
	(c) any discretionary benefit granted to a worker in connection with his or her employment.
	(4) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) regulations made pursuant to that subsection shall specify the process which an employer must follow in conducting a pay audit, the form in which the information must be published, and the degree and means of publicity to be made.
	(5) In making regulations pursuant to subsection (1) the Secretary of State shall adopt best practice for promoting awareness of the nature and causes of any pay gap between persons of different genders as set out by the International Labour Organisation from time to time.
	(6) The Secretary of State shall consult with the Equality and Human Rights Commission as to how to ensure that the regulations shall reflect best practice prior to the making of the first regulations and no less than every five years thereafter and shall amend the regulations as necessary to ensure that best practice is maintained.
	(7) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) regulations made pursuant to that subsection shall provide that where an employer fails to publish information as required by regulations made pursuant to subsection (1) an employer shall not be entitled to submit a material factor defence in accordance with section 66 in relation to any period for which they are in breach of their obligations under those regulations.
	(8) Where the information published by an employer reveals that there is a difference in the average pay of men and women doing relevant types of work as set out in section 61, then in any proceedings to enforce a sex equality rule or sex equality clause it shall be presumed that there is such a breach unless the employer can show a material factor defence.
	(9) Regulations made pursuant to subsection (1) may make provision for a failure to comply with the regulations-
	(a) to be an offence punishable on summary conviction by a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale;
	(b) to be enforced, otherwise than as an offence, by such means as is prescribed.
	(10) The reference to a failure to comply with the regulations includes a reference to a failure by a person acting on behalf of an employer.
	(11) Regulations made pursuant to subsection (1) shall provide that an employer must conduct a pay audit and publish information relating to the pay of its employees within six months of the coming into force of the regulations.
	(12) Regulations made pursuant to subsection (1) shall provide that where an employer (A) is able to determine the terms and conditions of employment as between another employer (B) and its employees, A shall publish the information that B would otherwise be required to publish in a way which is consolidated with the information for all other employees of A whose terms and conditions A may determine, and where A publishes consolidated information B shall not be in breach of those regulations if it does not publish any information.
	(13) A designated employer means an employer who has more than 100 employees.
	(14) Regulations made pursuant to subsection (1) shall require designated employers publishing information in relation to the average hourly pay of employees to specify how much of the hourly rate constitutes ordinary basic or minimum wage or salary and how much, if any, constitutes other consideration and to specify the types and amounts of any such other consideration.'.- (Lynne Featherstone.)
	 Brought up.
	 Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill:-
	 The House divided: Ayes 77, Noes 427.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 1
	 — 
	Public sector duty regarding socio-economic inequalities

Amendment made: 139, page 2, line 30, leave out subsection (6).- (Vera Baird.)

Clause 2
	 — 
	Power to amend section 1

Amendments made: 140, page 3, line 5, leave out from 'The' to first 'authority' in line 15 and insert
	'Scottish Ministers or the Welsh Ministers may by regulations amend section 1-
	(a) to add a relevant authority to the authorities that are subject to the duty under subsection (1) of that section;
	(b) to remove a relevant authority from those that are subject to the duty;
	(c) to make the duty apply, in the case of a particular relevant authority, only in relation to certain functions that it has;
	(d) in the case of a relevant authority to which the application of the duty is already restricted to certain functions, to remove or alter the restriction.
	(4A) For the purposes of the power conferred by subsection (4) on the Scottish Ministers, "relevant authority" means an authority whose functions-
	(a) are exercisable only in or as regards Scotland,
	(b) are wholly or mainly devolved Scottish functions, and
	(c) correspond or are similar to those of an authority for the time being specified in section 1(3).
	(4B) For the purposes of the power conferred by subsection (4) on the Welsh Ministers, "relevant'.
	141, page 3, line 22, leave out subsection (6) and insert-
	'(6) Before making regulations under this section, the Scottish Ministers or the Welsh Ministers must consult a Minister of the Crown.'.
	142, page 3, line 26, at end insert-
	'(7A) Provision made by the Scottish Ministers or the Welsh Ministers in reliance on subsection (7) may, in particular, amend section 1-
	(a) to confer on the Ministers a power to issue guidance;
	(b) to require a relevant authority to take into account any guidance issued under a power conferred by virtue of paragraph (a);
	(c) to disapply section 1(2) in consequence of the imposition of a requirement by virtue of paragraph (b).
	(7B) Before issuing guidance under a power conferred by virtue of subsection (7A)(a), the Ministers must-
	(a) take into account any guidance issued by a Minister of the Crown under section 1;
	(b) consult a Minister of the Crown.'.- (Vera Baird.)

Clause 13
	 — 
	Direct discrimination

Amendments made: 143, page 6, line 36, leave out from 'disability,' to end of line 2 on page 7 and insert
	'and B is not a disabled person, A does not discriminate against B only because A treats or would treat disabled persons more favourably than A treats B.'.
	Amendment 144, page 7, line 8, leave out subsection (6).- (Vera Baird.)

Clause 14
	 — 
	Combined discrimination: dual characteristics

Amendment made: 145, page 7, line 30, leave out subsections (3) to (9) and insert-
	'( ) For the purposes of establishing a contravention of this Act by virtue of subsection (1), B need not show that A's treatment of B is direct discrimination because of each of the characteristics in the combination (taken separately).
	( ) But B cannot establish a contravention of this Act by virtue of subsection (1) if, in reliance on another provision of this Act or any other enactment, A shows that A's treatment of B is not direct discrimination because of either or both of the characteristics in the combination.
	( ) Subsection (1) does not apply to a combination of characteristics that includes disability in circumstances where, if a claim of direct discrimination because of disability were to be brought, it would come within section 112 (special educational needs).
	( ) A Minister of the Crown may by order amend this section so as to-
	(a) make further provision about circumstances in which B can, or in which B cannot, establish a contravention of this Act by virtue of subsection (1);
	(b) specify other circumstances in which subsection (1) does not apply.
	( ) The references to direct discrimination are to a contravention of this Act by virtue of section 13.'.- (Vera Baird.)

Clause 15
	 — 
	Discrimination arising from disability

Amendments made: 146, page 8, line 15, leave out from 'B' to ', and' in line 16 and insert
	'unfavourably because of something arising in consequence of B's disability'.
	Amendment 147, page 8, line 21, leave out subsection (3).- (Vera Baird.)

Clause 21
	 — 
	Failure to comply with duty

Amendment made: 148, page 11, line 29, leave out 'otherwise actionable' and insert
	'actionable by virtue of another provision of this Act or otherwise'.- (Vera Baird.)

Clause 23
	 — 
	Comparison by reference to circumstances

Amendments made: 149, page 12, line 12, after '13,' insert '14,'.
	Amendment 150, page 12, line 12, leave out '19 or 20' and insert 'or 19'.
	Amendment 151, page 12, line 14, leave out subsection (2) and insert-
	'( ) The circumstances relating to a case include a person's abilities if-
	(a) on a comparison for the purposes of section 13, the protected characteristic is disability;
	(b) on a comparison for the purposes of section 14, one of the protected characteristics in the combination is disability.'.- (Vera Baird.)

Clause 25
	 — 
	Harassment

Amendments made: 152, page 13, line 21, leave out from 'characteristic' to end of line 31 and insert ', and
	(b) the conduct has the purpose or effect of-
	(i) violating B's dignity, or
	(ii) creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for B.
	(2) A also harasses B if-
	(a) A engages in unwanted conduct of a sexual nature, and
	(b) the conduct has the purpose or effect referred to in subsection (1)(b).
	(3) A also harasses B if-
	(a) A or another person engages in unwanted conduct of a sexual nature or that is related to gender reassignment or sex,
	(b) the conduct has the purpose or effect referred to in subsection (1)(b), and
	(c) because of B's rejection of or submission to the conduct, A treats B less favourably than A would treat B if B had not rejected or submitted to the conduct.'.
	Amendment 153, page 13, line 32, leave out 'that effect' and insert
	'the effect referred to in subsection (1)(b)'.
	Amendment 154, page 13, line 37, leave out subsection (4).- (Vera Baird.)

Clause 29
	 — 
	Ships and hovercraft

Amendments made: 155, page 16, line 3, leave out 'except section 28(6)' and insert 'subject to subsection (2)'.
	Amendment 156, page 16, line 7, leave out subsection (2) and insert-
	'(2) Section 28(6) applies in relation to the matters referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1); but in so far as it relates to disability discrimination, section 28(6) applies to those matters only in such circumstances as are prescribed.'.- (Vera Baird.)

Clause 35
	 — 
	Leasehold and commonhold premises and common parts

Amendments made: 157, page 19, line 29, leave out paragraph (b).
	Amendment 158, page 19, line 32, leave out 'of a tenement'.
	Amendment 159, page 19, line 36, leave out 'of a tenement'.
	Amendment 160, page 19, line 42, leave out paragraph (c).- (Vera Baird.)

Clause 36
	 — 
	Interpretation and exceptions

Amendment made: 161, page 20, line 31, leave out subsection (8).- (Vera Baird.)

Clause 37
	 — 
	Employees and applicants

Amendment made: 162, page 21, line 38, after '13', insert ', 14'.- (Vera Baird.)

Clause 47
	 — 
	Personal offices: apppointments, etc.

Amendment made: 163, page 30, line 12, after '13', insert ', 14'.- (Vera Baird.)

Clause 48
	 — 
	Public offices: appointments, etc.

Amendment made: 164, page 31, line 40, after '13', insert ', 14'.- (Vera Baird.)

Clause 68
	 — 
	Sex discrimination in relation to contractual pay

Amendment made: 165, page 44, line 9, after '13', insert 'or 14'.- (Vera Baird.)

Clause 103
	 — 
	Interpretation and exceptions

Amendment made: 166, page 64, line 34, leave out from 'description' to '; and' in line 35.- (Vera Baird.)

Clause 115
	 — 
	Remedies

Amendment made: 167, page 72, line 7, leave out subsection (5) and insert-
	'(5) Subsection (5A) applies if the county court or sheriff-
	(a) finds that a contravention of a provision referred to in section 110(1) is established by virtue of section 19, but
	(b) is satisfied that the provision, criterion or practice was not applied with the intention of discriminating against the claimant or pursuer.
	(5A) The county court or sheriff must not make an award of damages unless it first considers whether to make any other disposal.'.- (Vera Baird.)

Clause 143
	 — 
	Meaning of "qualifying compromise contract"

Amendments made: 168, page 89, line 21, at end insert-
	'( ) the contract relates to the particular complaint,'.
	Amendment 169, page 90, line 30, leave out subsection (10).- (Vera Baird.)

Clause 155
	 — 
	Positive action: recruitment and promotion

Amendment proposed: 18, in page 98, line 7, leave out 'as qualified as' and insert 'equally qualified to'.- (John Penrose.)
	 Question put, That the amendment be made.
	 The House divided: Ayes 160, Noes 354.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 164
	 — 
	Assistance dogs in taxis: exemption certificates

Amendment made: 170, page 104, line 17, leave out from 'applies,' to end of line 18 and insert 'Transport for London'.- (Vera Baird.)

Clause 188
	 — 
	Charities

Amendment made: 171, page 116, line 14, after 'belief', insert
	'; and for this purpose restricting the access by members to a benefit, facility or service to those who make such a statement is to be treated as imposing such a requirement'.- (Vera Baird.)

Clause 189
	 — 
	Charities: supplementary

Amendment made: 172, page 117, line 1, at end insert-
	'( ) Section 103(5) applies to references in subsection (5) of section 188 to members, or persons wishing to become members, of a charity.'.- (Vera Baird.)

Clause 192
	 — 
	Age

Amendment made: 173, page 118, line 2, at end insert-
	'(2A) An order under this section may-
	(a) confer on a Minister of the Crown or the Treasury a power to issue guidance about the operation of the order (including, in particular, guidance about the steps that may be taken by persons wishing to rely on an exception provided for by the order);
	(b) require the Minister or the Treasury to carry out consultation before issuing guidance under a power conferred by virtue of paragraph (a);
	(c) make provision (including provision to impose a requirement) that refers to guidance issued under a power conferred by virtue of paragraph (a).
	(2B) Guidance given by a Minister of the Crown or the Treasury in anticipation of the making of an order under this section is, on the making of the order, to be treated as if it has been issued in accordance with the order.
	(2C) For the purposes of satisfying a requirement imposed by virtue of subsection (2A)(b), the Minister or the Treasury may rely on consultation carried out before the making of the order that imposes the requirement (including consultation carried out before the commencement of this section).
	(2D) Provision by virtue of subsection (2A)(c) may, in particular, refer to provisions of the guidance that themselves refer to a document specified in the guidance.'.- (Vera Baird.)

Clause 196
	 — 
	Exercise of power

Amendments made: 174, page 120, line 14 , after 'section', insert '[Adjustments to common parts in Scotland],'.
	Amendment 175, page 120, line 17, after '192', insert 'or 205'.
	Amendment 176, page 120, line 17, at end insert-
	'( ) In the case of section 205, provision by virtue of subsection (4)(b) may be included in a separate order from the order that provides for the commencement to which the provision relates; and, for that purpose, it does not matter-
	(a) whether the order providing for the commencement includes provision by virtue of subsection (4)(b);
	(b) whether the commencement has taken place.'.- (Vera Baird.)

Clause 197
	 — 
	Ministers of the Crown

Amendment made: 177, page 120, line 37, leave out paragraph (a).- (Vera Baird.)

Clause 199
	 — 
	The Scottish Ministers

Amendment made: 178, page 122, line 1, at end insert-
	'( ) regulations under section [Adjustments to common parts in Scotland] (power to make provision about adjustments to common parts in Scotland);'.- (Vera Baird.)

Schedule 3
	 — 
	Services and public functions: exceptions

Amendment made: 179, page 138, line 8, at end insert-
	 'Services arranged by employer
	(4) Section 28 does not apply to the provision of a relevant financial service if the provision is in pursuance of arrangements made by an employer for the service-provider to provide the service to the employer's employees, and other persons, as a consequence of the employment.
	(5) "Relevant financial service" means-
	(a) insurance or a related financial service, or
	(b) a service relating to membership of or benefits under a personal pension scheme (within the meaning given by section 1 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993).
	(6) "Service-provider" has the meaning given in section 28.'.- (Vera Baird.)

Schedule 4
	 — 
	Premises: reasonable adjustments

Amendments made: 180, page 145, line 32 , leave out 'or, in Scotland, an owner of the premises'.
	Amendment 181, page 146, line 1, leave out from beginning to 'all' in line 3.
	Amendment 182, page 147, line 5, leave out 'or, in Scotland, the owner of the premises'.- (Vera Baird.)

Schedule 9
	 — 
	Work: exceptions

Amendment proposed: 37, page 162, line 13, leave out sub-paragraph (8).- (Mr. Drew.)
	 Question put, That the amendment be made:
	 The House divided: Ayes 170, Noes 314.

Question accordingly negatived.

Schedule 10
	 — 
	Accessibility for disabled pupils

Amendment made: 183, page 172, line 10, at end insert-
	'(6A) A direction may not, unless sub-paragraph (6B) applies, be given to the responsible body of a school in England in respect of a matter-
	(a) that has been complained about to a Local Commissioner in accordance with Chapter 2 of Part 10 of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 (parental complaints against governing bodies etc.), or
	(b) that the appropriate authority thinks could have been so complained about.
	(6B) This sub-paragraph applies if-
	(a) the Local Commissioner has made a recommendation to the responsible body under section 211(4) of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 (statement following investigation) in respect of the matter, and
	(b) the responsible body has not complied with the recommendation.'.- (Vera Baird.)

Schedule 18
	 — 
	Public sector equality duty: exceptions

Amendments made: 184, page 192, line 23, at end insert-
	'( ) the provision of accommodation, benefits, facilities or services in residential establishments pursuant to section 26(1)(b) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995.'.
	185, page 192, line 29, after 'belief', insert
	'; but for that purpose "race" means race so far as relating to-
	(a) nationality, or
	(b) ethnic or national origins.'.- (Vera Baird.)

Schedule 22
	 — 
	Statutory provisions

Amendment made: 186, page 208, line 27, in the first column leave out ', 4, 6 and' and insert 'to'.- (Vera Baird.)

John McDonnell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I use this point of order to place on the record for those who have been involved in the campaign to obtain decent wages for seafarers and to tackle poverty pay on British ships how disappointed a large number of Members are that we were denied the opportunity today even to vote on the matter, despite a lengthy debate? I think it is a disgrace to the House, and it undermines the whole concept of, and belief in, democracy in this country that we cannot address such a crucial issue as the poverty pay of seafarers in this country.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has put that on the record. He knows that it is not a point of order. It is dangerously near a criticism of the Chair for the selection responsibilities that we have. I ask him to consider that.

Ann Widdecombe: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I certainly would never criticise the Chair, but I think it is rather different to ask a question about the timetabling, which today has meant that three groups of amendments were not even reached, that other important amendments could not be discussed at length and that there simply was no time to vote on others. I would be grateful if Mr. Speaker could talk to Ministers about this-if such a thing ever happens.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. Lady must know that she cannot plot Mr. Speaker's course on these matters. She must know that a programme motion was agreed by the House.  [Interruption.] Order. It would not be the first occasion on which the House has felt a little frustrated that there has been insufficient time.

Evan Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can anything be done in situations such as this, where not three but five groups of amendments have not been reached? They contain Government new clauses and amendments that have never been scrutinised by this House as well as tens-scores, in fact-of amendments tabled by hon. Members. Is there nothing that we can do, even at this late stage, to ensure that we get a chance at least to divide on some of these important issues?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman made that point earlier, if not in exactly the same words then in very similar words, and Mr. Speaker was obliged to rule that the answer is no. I think that the hon. Gentleman is aware of the constraints that apply.

Douglas Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will doubtless know that the noble Lord Rooker has suggested that when such an occasion arises in this House, a certificate should be sent to the other place identifying those parts of a Bill that have not been properly debated or even debated at all. It would be within the discretion of Mr. Speaker to issue such a certificate in respect of the clauses that have been the subject of discussion in the points of order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The noble Lord Rooker is no longer here to argue his point. I am sure that Mr. Speaker will have noted the right hon. and learned Gentleman's observation.
	 Third Reading

Vera Baird: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	I am pleased with the scrutiny and attention that hon. Members have given this important Bill. It has been considered for a considerable period in Committee and it has been improved in significant ways as a result of its passage through the House, including in the addition of protection against dual discrimination, the extension of the socio-economic duty to Scotland, the limits on questions about disability that can be asked by employers when recruiting, and clarification of the pregnancy and maternity provisions. It can be further improved if the research that we have commissioned from the Equality Commission on caste can, as we have asked, be completed quickly so that if there is need, we can ban caste discrimination through measures in the other place.
	The Government have a proud history of equalities legislation. When this Bill's predecessor, the Equality Act 2006, was going through Parliament, there were a number of calls for a new equality Bill. This Bill answers those calls. It sets out groundbreaking new laws that will help narrow the gap between rich and poor, place equality at the heart of what public bodies do, require transparency and therefore action to tackle the gender pay gap and outlaw age discrimination outside the workplace. In all those ways it will significantly strengthen Britain's equality legislation, which for the first time is brought together coherently in one place. It is what we have described as a "plain English Bill"-that is to say that the final version will have the legal clauses on one side of the page and explanatory notes on the other to optimise accessibility.

Katy Clark: I welcome everything that my hon. and learned Friend has said. She will recall that I raised an issue to do with the Scottish Gypsy Traveller community earlier. Is she in a position to come back to me on the question of whether she believes that they are covered under the legislation by the category of race?

Vera Baird: My understanding is that there is already a case about that, although at first instance I have not had an opportunity to consider it in sufficient depth to answer my hon. Friend's question. I shall certainly write to her and I commend her for raising the issue.
	Equality and fairness are the hallmarks of a modern and confident society. When we talk about equality, it is easy to lose sight of the fact that we are talking about something that affects and impacts on real people. What we actually mean when we talk about equality is fairness-the principle that everyone has the right to be treated fairly and to have the opportunity to fulfil their potential. The Bill moves that agenda on considerably and I commend it to the House.

Theresa May: I want to thank all hon. Members who have taken part in scrutinising this Bill at each of its stages. A Bill of this length and complexity places a particular burden on those who sit on the Committee, and I particularly commend my hon. Friends the Members for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper) and for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) for the sterling work that they did in Committee. I believe that they have been able to achieve some improvements to the Bill.
	It has taken us a long time to reach this point. It is therefore all the more disappointing that the Leader of the House did not respond to the request from my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean that more time should be given on Report, given the large number of amendments and new clauses tabled by hon. Members from both sides of the House and by the Government.

Peter Bone: Will my right hon. Friend advise the Opposition? Given that we have not had time properly to scrutinise the Bill, is not the only option for some Members to vote against it on Third Reading?

Theresa May: I note my hon. Friend's concern about the lack of time allowed to debate certain aspects of the Bill, but I am sure that Members of another place will be taking particular note of those aspects of the Bill that have not been properly debated and scrutinised in this House. It would not be appropriate to vote against the Bill purely on that procedural point. There are aspects of it with which I do not agree, although I do agree with a lot of it.

Nicholas Winterton: I agree with much of what my right hon. Friend has just said. Does she agree that much of what has happened in this House has highlighted the importance of the other place and the fact that it is not subject to programme motions?

Theresa May: Indeed. I note that point, and I am sure that it will also be noted by those in the other place who will scrutinise the Bill. My hon. Friend has raised concerns about programme motions on many occasions and has put his point most forcefully. It is a pity that the Government have not listened to it on this occasion and a number of others. We have always been clear about the need for a single Equality Bill to bring together and streamline the various pieces of equality legislation. Given that there are currently nine pieces of primary legislation, more than 100 regulations and more than 2,500 pages of guidance and codes of practice, there is a clear need for simplification and streamlining. We certainly support that aspect of the Bill, which makes up the majority of it. I know that many practitioners and businesses out there will strongly welcome the streamlining of equalities legislation into a single piece of legislation.

Rob Marris: I, too, very much welcome the Bill, but will the right hon. Lady explain why she and her party voted against it on Second Reading?

Theresa May: The hon. Gentleman needs to check his facts. We put down a reasoned amendment on Second Reading- [ Interruption. ] The Leader of the House is chuntering from the Treasury Bench; had she given more time to debate the Bill, she could have chuntered from the Dispatch Box as well. As I was saying to the hon. Gentleman, we put down a reasoned amendment, and I am about to identify the aspects of the Bill on which we still disagree with the Government.
	We support the streamlining of legislation, but we are not able to support several areas of the Bill. The socio-economic duty is indicative of the Government's failure to tackle issues of inequality and poverty as well as their causes. As we approach the end of this Parliament, it is clear that the Government have run out of ideas. I wish that passing a law to tell people that they are entitled to a better life would actually deliver that, but it will not. We want the Government to tackle the issues that cause inequality, but their failure to take the decisions necessary to improve educational outcomes, tackle worklessness and reduce family breakdown, all of which are key causes and drivers of inequality and poverty, mean that they are now resorting to this posturing with pointless targets.
	In Committee, we pressed the Government on a number of issues, one of which was positive action in recruitment, and some discrepancy seems to have emerged between the understanding of the Leader of the House and that of the Solicitor-General about what the Bill should do on that issue. On Second Reading, the Leader of the House said that positive action would be allowed in cases where there were "two equally qualified candidates", but the Solicitor-General confirmed in Committee that the legislation would be "far broader" than that. We have consistently supported positive action on the basis that it could be used as a tiebreaker when there are two equally qualified candidates. It is a shame that the Government appear to have gone beyond that, and we hope to return to this issue in the other place.
	The Solicitor-General mentioned pre-employment questionnaires. I recognise that the Government have taken the concerns about them seriously, but I still feel that they have not gone far enough. For people with disabilities or longer-term health issues, and especially those who suffer from health conditions, the issue remains of concern. The Royal College of Psychiatrists has said that people with mental health problems face serious discrimination in the employment process, particularly from the attitude of employers. We need to make sure that there is a level playing field for people with health issues, and in general we do not believe that details of an illness or disability should be required to be revealed until after a job offer has been made. As I said, I recognise that the Government have taken on board some of the concerns in this area, but we will want to return to the matter again.

Vera Baird: I shall not detain the Chamber, but the clause that we have put forward now is stronger than the one proposed by the Opposition. It offers a solution, whereas theirs merely declares things to be unlawful and offers no remedy. Ours is the stronger measure but, apart from that, I honestly believe that the right hon. Lady is making a fuss about nothing and that there is not a cigarette paper between us.

Theresa May: I have to tell the hon. and learned Lady that it was only after we had pressed them on this point that the Government were willing to make any movement. There is still concern about the matter outside this House. I am sure that the other place will want to return to it, and there are also problems with the regulations on age-related discrimination.
	Equality is not just for the good times. We all want to ensure that equality and fairness drive what we do, but we must recognise that equality has been given a bad name in recent years, with many people thinking that it is something given to others and not to them.
	We are clear that equality should never be the enemy of common sense. It should not get in the way of businesses, communities or the public sector, but instead it should help them to work better. That is the approach that we have taken, and it is the one that we will continue to take.

Lynne Featherstone: I thank colleagues on both sides of the House for their contributions in Committee and on Report. There have been some very intelligent and long discussions about the Bill, with huge consensus evident across the House. I should also like to thank all the Officers and Clerks of the House who have helped us, and me especially, as we have worked our way through the Bill.
	My party welcomes the Bill and the way that it brings all sorts of legislation together. We oppose the Government on almost nothing in it, but believe that it should have gone further. I have great concerns that the things that were not included in the Bill, or in respect of which the Bill does not go far enough, will not see the light of day if there is a change of Government.
	I welcome the introduction of measures covering age discrimination in the provision of goods and services, but fear that delaying them for six months could mean that they will not come into force. In addition, I am disappointed that the blanket ban on gay men giving blood was not examined further, but I am very relieved that the Solicitor-General said that the question of caste should be looked at again in the other place.
	I am very disappointed that children will continue to face harassment in school if homophobic bullying does not receive the same coverage that other discriminations receive. In respect of people whose gender identity is not clear, I have never felt that the Government have properly understood the difference between gender reassignment and gender identity.
	I hugely welcome this Bill but, for the reasons that I have set out, I hope that it will be taken further and that matters that we have not succeeded in getting debated will receive proper consideration. Along with colleagues across the House, I deplore the lack of time made available for discussion, as it has meant that we have not been able to debate many important and serious issues. That abdication of responsibility to democracy makes a farce of any commitment to a different type of politics.

Keith Vaz: Although there are obvious differences between those on the different party Front Benches, the comments of both the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) and the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone) have made it clear that their parties have an absolute commitment to equality.
	I just want to place on record my appreciation for the work done by the Leader of the House in propelling this Bill from a draft to the stage that it has reached now. She has been a true champion of equality, and this is a great legacy for her.

Mark Pritchard: Some of us have concerns about supporting the Bill on Third Reading, not because of many of its elements, which I support-my record on equal rights is on the public record-but because of the lack of time to discuss such important issues. For that very reason, I feel that I will perhaps not be able to support the Bill on Third Reading. It is an absolute disgrace that an issue of such importance has been given so little time.

John Mason: We certainly support the Bill. We believe that everyone is of equal value. It is disappointing that there was not a purpose clause. We spent too much time on the letter of the law-
	 Debate interrupted (Programme Order, 11 May 2009 )
	 The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83E), That the Bill be now read the Third time.

The House divided: Ayes 338, Noes 8.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	 Bill read the Third time and passed.

Deferred divisions

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 41A(3)),
	That at this day's sitting, Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply to the Motion in the name of Ms Harriet Harman relating to Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority.- (Mr. Frank Roy.)
	 Question agreed to.

Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We now come to motion 2. Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of Mr. Christopher Chope, to be moved in an amended form. The effect of the amendment will now be to remove the name of Jackie Ballard and not to replace it with any other name.

Barbara Keeley: I beg to move,
	That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will appoint Professor Sir Ian Kennedy to the office of Chair of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, and the Rt. Hon. Lord Justice Scott Baker, Jackie Ballard, Ken Olisa and Professor Isobel Sharp to the office of ordinary member of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority.
	The Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 sets out the procedure for appointing the chair and members of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. The 2009 Act stipulates that the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority will consist of five members, including the chair. Of the remaining four members, one must have held high judicial office, one must be a qualified auditor and one must be a former Member of this House. The candidates for those posts are selected by Mr. Speaker. The Act specifies that selection must be on merit and on the basis of free and open competition.
	The Act specifies that the successful candidates must then be approved by the Speaker's Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority before being proposed to the House. That has now happened and the motion gives effect to those decisions.
	On 4 November, Mr. Speaker announced to the House that Professor Sir Ian Kennedy had taken the role of chair-designate. Hon. Members will have seen the names of the four people selected by Mr. Speaker as the ordinary members of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. They are the right hon. Lord Justice Scott Baker, as a former holder of high judicial office; Professor Isobel Sharp, as a National Audit Office-qualified auditor; Jackie Ballard, as a former Member of the House of Commons, having been the Member for Taunton from 1997 to 2001; and Ken Olisa, who is a businessman.
	I am pleased to see that the proposed members are a diverse and representative group of people. Their biographies were published on the website of the implementation team for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority when their selections were announced. The nominees have been chosen by an independent panel on merit and under fair and open competition, based on the qualifications and experience deemed necessary for the roles.
	I am confident that the statutory nature of the authority and the processes used to appoint the chair and members will give the public the confidence that there is independent, external regulation of the system of Members' allowances.

Peter Bone: Is the Deputy Leader of the House at all surprised that the ex-Member of Parliament chosen served for only such a short time in the House?

Barbara Keeley: As I have indicated, this was an external recruitment process. There was a panel, and the nomination process was as I described. I have no further comment other than to say what I have already said.
	Hon. Members can be confident that the authority has the appropriate skills to take decisions based on a clear understanding of the requirement for transparency and the need for audit in all their work with Members. The establishment of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority is an important step in restoring the public's confidence in Parliament. The authority must now be allowed to get on with its work of drawing up a new allowances scheme. The leaders of all major parties have indicated their desire to move quickly on this, and I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will give the motion unanimous support tonight. I commend the motion to the House.

Shailesh Vara: Today's debate takes us a little closer to the light at the end of the tunnel on the expenses issue, which has so dominated the political headlines and the political agenda in recent months. As we all know, public trust in Parliament is at an all-time low. As part of the process of regaining public confidence, we need to set in place an independent and transparent framework to deal with the implementation and monitoring of MPs' allowances-a system that will command confidence from the public, but also allow MPs to get on with the job of properly representing their constituents, as well as fulfilling their parliamentary duties.
	The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority has already been established. Today's debate, however, appoints to the authority's board the key people who will drive through the reforms. As we have heard, all the candidates were selected by open competition based on merit. The selections were carried out by an independent panel in which no Member of Parliament was involved. The Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 stipulates that as well as the chairman, there must be four ordinary members, of whom at least one must have held high judicial office, one must be a qualified auditor, and one must be a former Member of Parliament.
	Professor Sir Ian Kennedy is eminently qualified to serve as the board's chairman. He is an academic of international renown, and as chairman of the Healthcare Commission his leadership skills shone through. Equally important is the fact that he was not afraid to show his independence of thought. That independent nature is pivotal in reassuring the public of impartiality in monitoring and implementing the new allowances regime.
	The appointment to the board of Lord Justice Scott Baker will bring to the authority one of Britain's finest legal minds. He brings a wealth of experience, and he is no stranger to high-profile issues, having previously sat as a coroner for the inquests into the deaths of Diana, Princess of Wales and Dodi Fayed. Given that the old system lacked proper audit and assurance practices in line with modern standards, the appointment of Professor Isobel Sharp is to be welcomed. Her experience in accounting and auditing will bring substance, as well as robustness, to the new process. The new system will have to be open and transparent, and for that to be so, technology will play a vital role. So the appointment of Ken Olisa, a businessman whose career has focused on the technology sector, will have much significance. Finally, there is the requirement for a former Member of Parliament, and that role will be undertaken by Jackie Ballard, the former Lib Dem MP.
	The process of selection has been a lengthy one, and for that I would like to thank the panel that recruited Sir Ian and the others, which was chaired by Felicity Huston, the Commissioner for Public Appointments for Northern Ireland. Thanks are also due to the Speaker of the House and to all those who served on the Speaker's Committee that subsequently considered all the appointees before their names were presented to us today.
	As regards the amendment that Mr. Speaker has selected, the House will of course wish to hear from those who propose it, and then Members can decide accordingly.
	Sir Ian, as chairman-designate, has already started work with his implementation team to turn Sir Christopher Kelly's proposals into reality. Today's appointments are critical to that process. Sir Ian has said that he hopes the final scheme will be in place by early next spring, and I very much hope that that deadline will be met. Then we can begin the slow process of regaining the public's trust not only in us but, more importantly, in Parliament itself.

David Heath: I agree with the sentiments expressed by both the Deputy Leader of the House and the hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Mr. Vara) in saying that this motion is a crucial part of a process that was started some time ago, which all of us understand as being a matter of urgency and immense importance in re-establishing trust in the system and ensuring that the decisions that need to be taken by an independent body outside the purview of this House are taken in an orderly fashion.
	I recall that when we dealt with these matters earlier this year in proceedings on the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, there were details that were properly matters for debate, and matters on which the House divided. However, one that was not divided upon and on which no dissent was expressed was the process, now set out clearly in statute, for arriving at the names of the independent members. I hope that Members who had the opportunity to change that process will not express the view today that it is somehow inappropriate. It is clearly laid out in statute.
	I have no difficulty with the process, and I believe that we have before us today a list of names that has been arrived at through a fair, open and competitive system, with the attributes of those individuals having been properly considered in competition with others.

Peter Bone: The hon. Gentleman normally stands up for the right of this House to scrutinise business, but he rather seems to be saying that because some other body has decided these names, we should automatically accept them. Is that his view?

David Heath: My view is that this House decided a process, which did not involve Members picking and choosing members of an independent body who suited their own personal views. I shall read from the Act for the hon. Gentleman, because he has clearly forgotten what it says. It states in part 1 of schedule 1:
	"(1) The chair of the IPSA is to be appointed by Her Majesty on an address of the House of Commons.
	(2) An ordinary member of the IPSA is to be appointed by Her Majesty on an address of the House of Commons.
	(3) A motion for an address under sub-paragraph (1) or (2) may be made only with the agreement of the Speaker."
	Mr. Speaker has agreed to the motion before us. The Act also states:
	"The person the subject of the motion must have been selected by the Speaker on merit on the basis of fair and open competition."
	It does not say that they should have been selected by amendment in the House. It states:
	"The Speaker must not select a candidate without the agreement of the Speaker's Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority."
	That is a body that the House set up for the express purpose of advising Mr. Speaker.

Desmond Swayne: The hon. Gentleman has rightly set out the necessary conditions, but not sufficiently. There is also the condition that the address be voted by the House.

David Heath: But not amended by the House.  [Interruption.] I am sorry, but if the hon. Gentleman does not like this, he should have made that point at the time when the statute was passed, not now. It is set out clearly.

Andrew Turner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If it is not possible for us to have a vote, why are we able to have a debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is possible to have a vote, because Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment.

David Heath: I have a further concern. The attributes of the members of IPSA are set out in the legislation-the Deputy Leader of the House has already laid out what those people should be. One member should be the chairman and there should be four other members. One must have held judicial office and one must be qualified to be an auditor, and the motion includes both. However, one member must be a person who has been but is no longer a Member of the House of Commons, which is where I have a problem.
	I have no doubt whatever that Mr. Speaker is perfectly in order-of course, by definition, he is in order-to have selected what is effectively a manuscript amendment to delete one member. However, if the amendment were made, it would leave the motion deficient in meeting the requirements of the 2009 Act, because it would mean that IPSA will not have the required members to do its work.
	I see this as yet another attempt to slow down the process of introducing proper reform in this House of Commons. The process has constantly been sniped at by certain Members who wish to retain the old practices. Many of us feel that it is time for those delays to stop and time for us to do what is necessary to sort out the reform of this House.
	My fear is that the motion before us is capable of amendment to make it unlawful, were the amendment to be moved, so on a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I beg to move, That the Question be not now put. That is the substantive motion before us.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Speaker has selected an amendment which in due course will be taken. That is the ruling on which I intend to rest.

David Heath: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I refer to "Erskine May", page 341. This is an accepted parliamentary procedure. It applies to the Question currently before the House, not the Question that is to be moved at a later stage. It is that the Question be not now put. I ask you to rule whether that matter should not now be divided upon.

Peter Bottomley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Are we to understand that the hon. Gentleman has not moved an amendment, and that having made his own speech, he now proposes that the main question should not be put to the House at any stage?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It would appear a rather odd proposal that the matter which, as the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley) says, needs to be decided by the House, should not be decided by the House, so I am not prepared to accept the motion of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). That is my ruling.

Nicholas Winterton: I beg to move, after 'Rt. Hon Lord Justice Scott Baker,', leave out 'Jackie Ballard'.
	The amendment is in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), who sadly cannot be in the House this evening owing to official parliamentary business in Europe. It is an amended amendment.
	Initially, I should like to thank Mr. Speaker, his office and the Clerks of the House for enabling the amendment to be selected and debated. I am somewhat surprised by the fervour of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) for the Liberal Democrat party. I thought that he and his party were in favour of open and transparent debate, which is what this is all about.
	My remarks are going to be brief, and I want to make two points. First, I am of the view that Jackie Ballard, who served in this House for just four years, is not adequately experienced to represent all Members of the House on IPSA, which is a very important authority. It is going to establish an allowance and expenses process for the House to put right all the problems that have been experienced over the past 15 months.
	I speak as a Member who has been in Parliament for 38 years plus and therefore has some experience of how this House operates and why some of the problems that have occurred recently have arisen, and we need a former Member of Parliament who has been out of the House for at least one Parliament, but who had substantial experience of this House and could bring a wealth of knowledge to the discussions that the authority will have under the chairmanship of Professor Sir Ian Kennedy.

Robert Smith: During the passage of the Bill that has brought this motion before us, did the hon. Gentleman attempt to introduce an amendment to the effect that there should be this bar or hurdle that someone has to overcome before they may be nominated?

Nicholas Winterton: I do not think that that is a particularly relevant question. My colleague and I have tabled an amendment to the motion on the Order Paper because we believe strongly-and I have spoken to Labour Members and other Conservative Members who agree-that it would be more appropriate for the person who will represent Members of Parliament to have a lot more experience than Jackie Ballard.
	I hope that what I am about to say will not be too controversial and anger Liberal Democrat Members. I wonder whether someone whose job is mainly lobbying is the sort of person-

David Heath: rose-

Nicholas Winterton: Let me finish. I wonder whether someone whose job is mainly lobbying is the sort of person who should represent Members of Parliament on this important authority. I shall quote remarks made by Jackie Ballard in an interview with  The Guardian:
	"I might have a background in campaigning but that's not why I'm here. I'm here because of my knowledge of the voluntary sector, my understanding of the lobbying process".
	That suggests to me that one of her main assets is her ability to lobby. In the same interview, she said:
	"There's a really big job to be done, whether it's fighting for better legislation or employment practice".
	I often agree with the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), as he knows, on the processes of this House, but that indicates that this particular individual does not have the appropriate advantages, experience and assets to represent Members of Parliament on an authority that will decide the future of allowances and expenses for many years to come and may therefore influence whether people come into this place or not, or whether they stay here. I am leaving and therefore it will have no impact on me, but I have a right and a duty to be concerned about the future of this House. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give me credit for being committed to this House as a democratic assembly, and I will fight to the death to ensure that that is its future.

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman knows that I have frequently given him credit for precisely the attributes that he has rightly assumed to himself. However, this is not a matter for personalities. I did not mention the personal attributes of any of the persons in the motion. This is a matter of procedure, as he knows very well, and this is the procedure that was set down by this House-not anyone else-for names to be brought forward. It is not for us to usurp what was an open and transparent competition for those places. He can reject the lot, but I do not believe that he can take a single name and reject it on the grounds that he has advanced.

Nicholas Winterton: We took advice on the matter, and the Speaker, whose position in the House is very important and whose final decision is the final decision, decided that the amendment, in its amended form, was acceptable to the House.

Robert Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Nicholas Winterton: I am not going to give way again because I promised that I would be brief.
	I believe that I have certain duties, if I feel strongly about one of the appointments. I have the appropriate papers telling me how the individual was appointed to the authority as one of the four other than the chairman, Professor Sir Ian Kennedy. I am well aware of the considerable thought given to the matter, but I believe that in a democracy, an individual has a right, despite the expertise of many of the people involved in the prior process, to air their concerns and reservations.

Robert Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Nicholas Winterton: I will not give way.
	I believe that we should have an ex-Member of the House with considerably more experience to represent Members of the House during the critical few months while Professor Sir Ian Kennedy decides on the allowances and expenses process that will impact on Members of the House for many years to come.

David Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. At the end of the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), he claimed to move the previous Question-that the Question be not now put. It has been the invariable practice of the Chair to accept that motion, which is a debatable motion, and to have the House discuss it before moving on to amendments of the form that has just been spoken to by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton). What happens in such a debate is that Members can then discuss whether they think that it would be right for the House to decide the matter that evening, or whether it would be better, given the circumstances and possible illegality that my hon. Friend described, for the matter to be moved over to a different day.

Peter Bottomley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall respond to the point of order from the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) first, and then I shall be very happy to listen to the point of order from the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley).
	I say to the hon. Member for Cambridge that my understanding of matters is not the same as his. I do not think that it is correct that the Chair can simply accept the previous Question and, as he put it-if I quote him correctly-move on. It is not a question of accepting it and moving on. If the previous Question were to be accepted by the Chair, it would be debatable and the House would be obliged to debate it. It is not, therefore, a question of moving on. It would have to be debated, and I am not at this point suggesting that it be debated.
	For the purposes of clarification, may I establish whether the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) was merely thinking that he was giving way, or had he genuinely concluded his oration?

Nicholas Winterton: Mr. Speaker, I have concluded. I promised Members of the House to whom I spoke that I would seek-uniquely-to be brief. I was brief, other than the interventions that I took, but I felt that I had to state my case clearly and transparently, as you would expect me to do.

Mr. Speaker: I am very grateful. I hasten to add that I certainly was not commenting in any judgmental way on the length of the hon. Gentleman's speech, nor expressing surprise. Nevertheless, I am extremely grateful to him for his clarification.
	I want to move on shortly, but I must honour my obligation to the hon. Member for Worthing, West.

Peter Bottomley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The original suggestion to the House was that the original Question be not now put. Given that that was not accepted, we were able to go on with the debate, which would have been the effect of moving a motion that the Question be not now put. I suspect that there was some confusion between saying that the motion should now be put and a motion that was not put, which was the previous business.

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, but I am not quite sure that it has caused any fog to evaporate. Some people might think that it has even added to the quantity of fog. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) was seeking to move the previous Question- [Interruption.] Well, I think that the purport of what the hon. Gentleman was saying was that he wished to move the previous Question-which, if I understand it correctly, was a proposition that the original Question should not now be put. The premise on which that proposition is based is that the original Question would be put on another occasion, but not this evening. I am minded to accept that at this point, and for that matter to be debated. I therefore now propose that Question.  [ Interruption. ] Let me try to explain for the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe). The proposition from the hon. Members for Cambridge and for Somerton and Frome is that the original Question should not now be put. That is my understanding of what those hon. Gentlemen are suggesting. They are arguing that the Question on the original motion should not be put tonight. I am happy for that matter to be debated at this point.

Ann Widdecombe: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Purely for clarification and so that I am not confused-I do not like being confused-may I ask what impact debating the motion moved by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) will have on the time available to debate the main motion?  [ Interruption. ] You did not even hear that point of order, did you?

Mr. Speaker: I think I did, but if the right hon. Lady wishes to repeat her point of order, she is welcome to do so.

Ann Widdecombe: Could you explain to me, Mr. Speaker, in words that I can understand, what impact accepting the hon. Gentleman's motion has on the time available for the main motion? Or can I go home?

Mr. Speaker: These are relatively uncharted waters-and certainly for this occupant of the Chair-but the answer to the right hon. Lady is that if, when the Question is put, the motion moved by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome is accepted, we would then proceed to the next business of the House. What I propose to allow is a short debate on this alternative proposition suggested by the hon. Gentleman-for which there is provision in the procedures of the House. When there has been a short debate on that matter, the proposition can be tested. If the proposition were successful, the effect would be that we would have to proceed to the next business. If it were unsuccessful, I believe that I am right in saying that we would be able to test the original motion- [Interruption.] Indeed: not "we would be able"; in fact, I would be obliged to test the will of the House on the original motion. I know that these are not easy situations, but I hope that that is clear to hon. Members. If anyone else wants to help out with a point of order, he or she is welcome to do so-but I do not want to tempt too many.

Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Am I right in thinking that if the proposal of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) is successful, the main motion would have to be returned to on another day, in another debate? If so, the import of what he is doing is to prevent IPSA from being set up and to prevent us from going forward-or am I wrong?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is right. The matter would have to be returned to by the House on another occasion. It is fair to say-I make this point not evaluatively, but as a statement, I think, of fact-that the intention of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome is indeed to ensure that no decision on the main motion is reached tonight. It is for that reason that he is proposing an alternative motion.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Mr. Speaker: I shall take one more point of order. Sir Patrick Cormack.

Patrick Cormack: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. For further clarification, if the motion moved by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) is carried and we move on to the next business, we shall then have to debate the IPSA motion on a future occasion. Presumably you would then be minded to accept another amendment such as that which you have accepted as being lawful and in order tonight-so we would be back to square one, would we not?

Mr. Speaker: I think that it was the late Lord Whitelaw who said that on the whole, he tended to believe in crossing bridges only when he came to them. However, I have noted what the hon. Gentleman has said, which is firmly on the record-and his remarks about the selection of amendments are in no way eccentric.
	I now call Mr. David Heath.

David Heath: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I ought to preface my remarks by assuming that I shall be speaking to the motion as at the point at which I proposed it-because that has some relevance to the House's proceedings. I am, of course, speaking to the main Question prior to any suggestion that an amendment had been moved. I seek your advice on that precise point, Mr. Speaker, because it is relevant. May I ask you, on a point of order: is the motion before us timed at the point at which I moved it?

Mr. Speaker: I think it is right to say that the motion became live at the point at which the hon. Gentleman proposed it-or rather, I proposed the Question, having heard the hon. Gentleman's representation. I believe that that was fewer than four minutes ago. I hope that that provides a helpful elucidation for the hon. Gentleman. I repeat-this is why I think it would be good if we discontinued points of order and got on with the substance-that I intend to allow only a short debate on this matter.
	I now call Mr. David Heath.

David Heath: I intend to be extremely brief, Mr. Speaker. We have now established that we are considering whether the original question be not now put-not the amendment. The amendment, in effect, has not now been moved, because this debate started from the point at which I claimed to move the procedural amendment.
	Let me explain why. There are two points. First, I believe that if the amendment were to be carried it would invalidate the motion, which is a great concern of mine because I want IPSA to be-

Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) is suggesting that if an amendment selected by the Speaker is carried, it would invalidate another motion. That would have been out of order, so the amendment would not have been allowed. As it has been allowed, the hon. Gentleman is clearly wrong.

Mr. Speaker: I fear that that is a point of opinion-for sure-and possibly a point of frustration, but I am not sure that it is a point of order.

David Heath: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have already made one of the two points I intended to make. In the light of that point, there is an argument that the decision should be put off-I hope until tomorrow-in order for the matter to be resolved, and so that a list of names that is in order and is presented by you, Sir, on the advice of the people whom you are statutorily bound to consult and be advised by, can be put before the House.
	If the procedural motion that I have proposed is negatived, it is clear from "Erskine May" that the effect of the "negativing" of that device is to require the Question on the main motion to be put forthwith. If, therefore, the procedural motion that I have moved-that the question be not now put-were to fail, the original Question will be divided upon immediately, without amendment. That is my purpose.

Peter Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman's last point contradicts virtually everything in "Erskine May". "Erskine May" is not a book of things that have never changed; everything that is in "Erskine May" is there because it once happened for the first time. What the hon. Gentleman has just suggested to you, Sir, and to the House, is that either his motion-or rather your motion, Mr. Speaker, on his behalf, as suggested by him-will be carried, in which case we would move on to the next business, or that it will fail, in which case the debate will finish. What he is suggesting is a stratagem that disallows the moving of the amendment and the House's chance to vote on it. If "Erskine May" does not allow that suggestion to be dismissed, I suggest that we should have a page in "Erskine May" that does deal with it-and it can start by reporting what happens this evening.
	I accuse the Liberal Democrats of being illiberal and undemocratic. What they are saying-I speak as someone who would have voted against the amendment and in favour of the original suggestions put forward in the motion in the name of the Leader of the House-amounts to digging a hole and jumping into it. I suggest that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome ask his party leader to come along and say whether he knew in advance that the Liberal spokesman was going to try to play this game. If the Liberal Democrat leader did not know that, why did the hon. Gentleman not consult his leader; and if his leader did know it, why is that leader not here to justify what clearly runs against the purpose of the House of Commons, which is to be able to make a decision on a relatively simple issue-in this case: do we choose Jackie Ballard, or do we choose Elizabeth Peacock?
	Let me say to the Liberal Democrats that I hope that the point that they have tried to make, either by means of a speech or by means of a point of order, does not work. And let me say to those who advised you, Mr. Speaker, that they ought to work out whether, this motion having been moved, it is possible to make a decision on the amendment. I suggest that we dismiss the hon. Gentleman's motion-although you have put it very fairly to the House-and then find a way of moving on to the amendment and making a decision on that.

Peter Bone: I think that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) is experiencing one of his worst days in the House. He had built up a reputation for securing debate in the House, and for ensuring that Members were here to oppose what was proposed and to put their points of view even if that was against the wishes of the Front Benchers or the Whips. But what we are seeing now is a manoeuvre to stop debate.
	You, Mr. Speaker, have already ruled that if the procedural motion is approved, we will move on to the next business. This is, in effect, wrecking and delaying the very development with which that hon. Gentleman claimed earlier that he wanted to proceed forthwith. He accused Conservative Members of trying to delay and wreck it, but the complete opposite is the case. We now see the Liberal Democrats' true colours, and this horrible manoeuvre should be defeated.

Patrick Cormack: I find this a very sad moment. The House is just making itself look stupid. It seems to me that what the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) has done is to resort to a stratagem that will have one effect and one effect only: the stifling of debate on an amendment that you yourself, Mr. Speaker, ruled to be in order. That strikes me as being fundamentally wrong.
	The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome made some telling points about the nature of the appointments, the way in which they had been arrived at, and the way in which you, Sir, had agreed to them-but you had selected the amendment, and therefore you clearly believed that it was entirely proper for the House to debate this particular proposition. I came here tonight from the reception which you were graciously and generously hosting for the American ambassador in order to take part in this debate, because I believe it is legitimate for the House to have an opportunity to consider the people who are being proposed as members of this extremely important authority. I do not want to indulge in personalities. All I would like to say is this: I believe that, as it has been decided that one of the members of this important authority should be a former Member of Parliament, it is legitimate to express the view that it would be a good thing if that Member of Parliament had a fairly lengthy experience of this House, and had betrayed a great degree of affection for and knowledge of it.
	I regret the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton)-who spoke to his amendment very moderately-had to insert names, but he really had no alternative. That is not a criticism of him. I just think that it would be a good idea for the House to put down some markers, so that those who are to serve on the independent authority-which will have no particular impact on me, as I shall not be here in the next Parliament-are aware that we truly want this Parliament, which I believe is the greatest Parliament in the world, and the House of Commons, which is the most important part of the greatest Parliament in the world, to regain public confidence and trust. That confidence and trust cannot be regained unless those who have the supervisory role that we are discussing understand what being a Member of Parliament is all about, and what the nature of this calling-I do not describe it as a job or an occupation-involves and demands.
	I hope that we can discuss this matter sensibly. Whether we need to vote is another matter entirely. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield has performed a service by tabling this amendment, and that you, Mr. Speaker, have performed a service to the House by selecting it. I also think that it ill behoves any of us to stifle debate or stop discussion on a subject that you yourself have clearly marked as entirely legitimate to be discussed.

Ann Widdecombe: We are witnessing a very sad exhibition of very unworthy tactics. Unfortunately, all this will do is to compound the reputation that we already have of being in a muddle, and of being untrustworthy in how we handle this wider issue. A motion, of which we all had due notice, was on the Order Paper, and you, Mr. Speaker, had selected an amendment, which means that you considered that amendment to be in order and worthy of debate in this House. Admire as I may anybody who can use "Erskine May" as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) has just done-despite my admiration for his technical achievement in that regard- I think it goes entirely against the democracy of this Chamber when we cannot debate a motion that has been fairly put down, of which we have had notice, and to which you, Mr. Speaker, have approved an amendment for debate. If we vote that this be not now put, the ridicule that we will receive in tomorrow's newspapers will speak for itself.

Mr. Speaker: In these exceptional circumstances, and following the right hon. Lady's remarks, I simply put it on the record that what she said about the selectable character of the amendment is correct. That was also said, I think, by the hon. Member for Macclesfield, and certainly by the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack). I hope the right hon. Lady will acknowledge that my concern in this matter must be to do what it is procedurally proper for me to do in the circumstances. Whatever may be said about the motivation for, or the reputation created by, the proposal for the previous question to be put, I have to make a judgment on the basis of what is procedurally proper. Members will no doubt be aware that the last three occasions when the previous question was moved were 20 January 1943, and 20 January and 3 May 1989. It is, therefore, a very infrequent occurrence; this is the fourth such occasion in a period of, I think, 66 years. I am guided, of course, by the advice that I am given, but I have also noted what the right hon. Lady has said.
	As no other Member is rising to speak, the proper procedure now is for me to put the Question that the Question be not now put. So that there is no confusion, let me explain that the Question that is to be put before the House is that on the motion supported by the hon. Members for Cambridge and for Somerton and Frome-That the main Question be not now put.
	 Question put , That the main Question be not now put.

The House divided: Ayes 41, Noes 194.

Question accordingly negatived.

Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I shall be brief. Do you not think it is a sad day for this House when a political party-the Liberal Democrats-seeks to silence transparent, open and important debate? Will you therefore look at what has occurred this evening and study "Erskine May" to see whether the use of this dishonest, devious device can be removed?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am genuinely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. He is an enormously experienced Member; will he withdraw the word dishonest, please?

Nicholas Winterton: I am happy to do that, Mr. Speaker. May I say "this unfortunate, devious device", and ask that it be removed so that the House can openly debate issues of great importance for the future of Parliament?

Mr. Speaker: It is in keeping with the hon. Gentleman's long experience of this House that he should use that opportunity to make a second point of order. He has exhorted me to do two things: to think and to look at the matter. I think I have to say, in respect of the first, that it is not the obligation of the Chair to think. However, it is perfectly reasonable for him to invite me to look at the matter, and I am always happy to have my eyes open as he advises that I should. Beyond that, the safest thing that I can say is that he has put his views on the record with his customary force and élan.

Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you confirm that if the Liberal Democrats had been successful in their attempt this evening, the House would not be able to vote on the setting up of IPSA? That party has tonight attempted to stop the setting up of IPSA.

Mr. Speaker: What I would say in response to the right hon. Gentleman's point of order is that I have already said what the consequences of particular votes on given propositions would be. That observation from me is on the record, and it would not be seemly now to go beyond that, but he has, in his point of order, put his views on behalf of the official Opposition very explicitly on the record for others to see. We must now vote on the main motion.
	 Main Question accordingly put forthwith.
	 Question agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will appoint Professor Sir Ian Kennedy to the office of Chair of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, and the Rt. Hon. Lord Justice Scott Baker, Jackie Ballard, Ken Olisa and Professor Isobel Sharp to the office of ordinary member of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority.

Business without Debate

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Legal Services

That the draft Legal Services Act 2007 (Functions of an Approved Regulator) Order 2009, which was laid before this House on 13 October, in the previous Session of Parliament, be approved.-( Helen Jones.)
	 Question agreed to.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No.118(6)),

Legal Services

That the draft Legal Services Act 2007 (Consequential Amendments) Order 2009, which was laid before this House on 2 November, in the previous Session of Parliament, be approved.-( Helen Jones.)
	 Question agreed to.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Environmental Protection

That the draft Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2009, which were laid before this House on 28 October, in the previous Session of Parliament, be approved.-( Helen Jones .)
	 The Speaker's opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 9 December (Standing Order No. 41A).

Welsh Grand Committee

Ordered ,
	That-
	(1) the matter of the Government's Legislative Programme as outlined in the Queen's Speech as it relates to Wales and Government expenditure in Wales be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for its consideration;
	(2) the Committee shall meet at Westminster on Wednesday 16 December at 9.25 am and between 2.00 pm and 4.00 pm to consider the matter referred to it under paragraph (1) above.-( Helen Jones .)

REGIONAL SELECT COMMITTEE (LONDON)

Motion made,
	That Ms Karen Buck, Jeremy Corbyn, Clive Efford, Siobhain McDonagh, Mr Andy Slaughter and Mr Andrew Pelling be members of the London Regional Select Committee.

Hon. Members: Object.

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made,
	That-
	(1) Standing Order No. 14 (Arrangement of public business) shall have effect for this Session with the following modifications, namely:
	In paragraph (4) the word 'eight' shall be substituted for the word 'thirteen' in line 42 and in paragraph (5) the word 'fifth' shall be substituted for the word 'eighth' in line 44;
	(2) Standing Order No. 90 (Second reading committees) shall have effect for this Session with the following modification, namely:
	In paragraph (2) the word 'fifth' shall be substituted for the word 'eighth' in line 21; and
	(3) Private Members' Bills shall have precedence over Government business on 29 January; 5 and 26 February; 5 and 12 March; 23 and 30 April; and 7 May.

Hon. Members: Object.

PETITION
	 — 
	Badman Report (Bridgwater)

Ian Liddell-Grainger: I shall try and keep this concise after all that- [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sure that Members will want to hear the presentation of the petition by the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger), but if they do not they can always amuse themselves elsewhere.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: The petition is from the residents of the town of Bridgwater.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of persons resident in the Bridgwater parliamentary constituency,
	Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
	 Following is the full text of the petition:
	 [The Petition o f persons resident in the Bridg water parliamentary constituency,
	 Declares that  they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
	 The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
	 And the Petitioners remain, etc. ] [P000436]

WHITTINGTON HOSPITAL

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. -(Helen Jones.)

Jeremy Corbyn: I am very pleased to have secured this Adjournment debate on the Whittington hospital. All my parliamentary neighbours-my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Frank Dobson), my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) and the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone)-wish either to intervene on my speech or to contribute to the debate. Like me, they all very much value our local hospital and want it to succeed and to continue in its present form. We all want to lift what I believe to be the threat that is hanging over it at the present time.
	I have represented Islington, North since 1983, and have had numerous dealings with the hospital. I have been a patient there, as have my children, and I have been to the hospital many times, either to visit people or to have regular discussions with its successive chairs and chief executives about how it is run. It is a very successful local hospital. It treats a large number of patients, serving roughly 250,000 people in the boroughs of Islington and Haringey and in parts of Camden and Barnet. It has been the beneficiary of a very large amount of investment over the past few years, with £30 million being invested in a new wing. That wing is now open and is very successful. It is very well run and of a very high standard, and the hospital has been free from MRSA for a very long time. It is a successful hospital of which we can all be proud, and that is the message that we want to get across.
	The hospital employs 2,000 staff and has 400 beds. Last year, it treated 20,000 in-patients, 16,000 day cases and 233,000 out-patients. It delivered 3,683 babies and, crucially, it treated 80,000 people in its accident and emergency department. It also has a very successful and well run maternity and labour unit. The hospital has a neonatal intensive care unit, and we are rightly proud of its new A and E department, which deals particularly with children. This is a hospital that serves its local community and we want it to continue to do so. That is the point of tonight's debate.
	The health service is undergoing one of its sporadic bouts of internal planning and reconfiguration, which is where the concerns come from. We are part of the north central planning area, which includes Camden, Islington, Haringey, Barnet and Enfield-all densely populated, all with rapidly rising populations, all busy areas and all surrounded by major railways, roads and facilities. For example, a short distance away from the Whittington is the Arsenal stadium, which hosts 60,000 people every fortnight, and there are obviously major roads such as the north circular and the A1, which runs virtually in front of the hospital.
	The concerns arose on 19 November, when a story appeared in the local paper, the  Islington Gazette, that
	"in a massive reorganisation of London's NHS, every hospital in the boroughs of Islington, Camden, Haringey, Enfield and Barnet will be categorised either as a 'local', 'major acute' or 'specialist'. The Whittington will almost definitely be downgraded to a 'local' hospital."
	An internal letter then also appeared from NHS Islington, which seemed to say that there was a question mark over the future of the hospital's A and E department and the intensive care unit. I believe that some of my parliamentary colleagues intend to refer to that when they speak a little later in this short but very important debate.
	Since the story came out, I have had numerous contacts with the hospital. I have spoken at some length with the primary care trust for Islington, which is also involved in the commissioning authority for the north central area. The more discussions I have with more people, the more concerned and alarmed I become. I also discovered during those discussions that a company called Participate has been retained by the NHS to undertake a consultation exercise, which, unfortunately, has so far taken place as an internal private focus group of some sort, as I understand it. I certainly was not invited to attend it. I have checked with the local authority and parliamentary neighbours, and I am not quite sure who was invited, but it certainly was not any of us. That has caused understandable concern.
	If the hospital's future is in any doubt, I want to know what attitude the Government will take, what pressure they will put on NHS London and what they see as the future configuration of health care facilities in London, and I say that for two reasons. An accident and emergency unit is the heart of a hospital. Obviously, with an A and E unit and an intensive therapy unit, anyone who suffers any kind of accident, injury or whatever else can be treated very quickly. Major surgery can take place in other parts of the hospital because there is an A and E unit as a back-up facility. That is very important: clearly, if the back-up facility is lost, the possibilities of major elective surgery are removed from the hospital, and we begin to see a downgrading and, ultimately, the hospital's closure.
	At the risk of sounding terminally boring, I would remind the House that I was first elected here in 1983. The first letter that I received from a Minister-I was really chuffed to get one from a Minister-was from the former Health Minister, Brian Mawhinney, who wrote to me to say that previous assurances given to my predecessor that the closure of the casualty unit, as it was then called, at the Royal Northern hospital would not lead to the hospital's closure were hereby withdrawn. Indeed, the hospital was duly closed. Those who have long memories see what is happening as part of a trajectory that will end with the Whittington hospital's closure.
	Arguments have been put that the casualty units are all very close together, so a closure is okay; it does not matter. Well, it does matter. It matters because of the safety of the people who live around that area, the safety of the community and the ability of the NHS, which we are all very proud of, to provide services free at the point of use for people who desperately need them.

Frank Dobson: I am sure my hon. Friend would agree that all the investment in the Whittington has been intended to upgrade it. What appears to be proposed now is to downgrade it. In relation to the threat to the 80,000 accident and emergency patients, will he confirm that the alternatives are the Royal Free, which has 80,000 accident and emergency patients, and University College hospital in my constituency, which has 130,000 accident and emergency patients and is already saying that the number of emergency cases is leading to delays in elective surgery, so as far as that hospital is concerned, it is getting too many emergency cases already, but if the Whittington A and E department closes, it will clearly get many more?

Jeremy Corbyn: My right hon. Friend is right: 80,000 patients are treated there. A friend of mine had a very serious heart attack in August. The ambulance did not have time to get to UCH because it would have taken five to 10 minutes more. It was very late at night and the roads were clear, so he was rushed to the Whittington, which was the nearest hospital. He was treated superbly and has made a recovery. That is one example in which somebody, had they had to go somewhere else, might not have survived. I want the House to understand that if we close casualty units it might look efficient on paper, but there are 80,000 people who use that casualty unit and I want them to be able to continue to do so.
	I shall be brief. Tomorrow evening Islington council is to receive a motion moved by the leader of the council and seconded by the leader of the opposition, expressing its concern at the threat to the accident and emergency service at the Whittington under the plans put forward, and asking that the council express its view that the accident and emergency department at the Whittington should remain open. I am sure that that motion will be carried by the council, and that equivalent motions will be carried on a cross-party basis in the neighbouring local authorities.
	Everyone in the area is aware that the huge amounts of investment to which my right hon. Friend referred, some of which he was instrumental in pursuing when he was Secretary of State, have paid off. We have good services, good treatment and a good hospital, and we want it to carry on that way. If we allow the proposal to go ahead and if we lose the A and E department, everything else is at risk, entailing a huge waste of public money and resources.
	I conclude by quoting Dr. Wendy Savage, a leading gynaecologist and co-chair of Keep Our NHS Public, who said:
	"We are gravely concerned about the implications of these changes."
	She said that they would
	"involve the loss of key services, including emergency surgery, paediatrics and maternity"
	if the full A and E services were lost.
	The consultations make me suspicious. If there are plans to close the Whittington A and E, come out with it in the open and let the public express their views. Do not allow the whole thing to be built up as some kind of financial case which becomes unanswerable, with the result that we lose those facilities. I am determined to defend my local hospital. We are all determined to defend our local hospital. I hope the Minister will understand the passion that is felt about that locally and that he will be able to say tonight that he is prepared to put pressure on to ensure that we keep that A and E and the hospital, and that the people of that very crowded part of London can rely on the NHS to provide them with the emergency services and all the other services that they need.

Emily Thornberry: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) on securing the debate. The issue is extremely important. The local Labour group of councillors has an online petition. I will not go through all the comments on that petition, but they are extremely moving and show how much loved the Whittington hospital is.
	I had my life saved by the Whittington hospital. I remember arriving at A and E, standing at a desk and weeping on the woman at the desk. I had gone yellow, my eyes had gone strange and I was having problems breathing. I had, it seems, gallstones that were messing up my liver and my pancreas. If I had left it any longer, I would not be here today. I love the Whittington and there is a strong reason for that.
	If there is any chance that anyone is seriously thinking about closing the Whittington A and E, they will have a fight on their hands, certainly from my hon. Friend and myself and the huge amount of support that we are already garnering in Islington and, I strongly suspect, across other boroughs that use the Whittington. I was speaking earlier today to the Minister for Higher Education and Intellectual Property, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy). There was some confusion about when the debate would begin, but he was intending to sit on the Back Benches and look like thunder. I know that he feels as strongly as I do.

Lynne Featherstone: I congratulate the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) on securing this vital, urgent and timely debate. He put his case-our case-exceptionally well, because what is true in Islington, North is true in Haringey and in Hornsey and Wood Green.
	I first learned about the possible closure because I broke my toe-these things happen-and went to the Whittington hospital, as one does. A letter was leaked to me, and that letter was very explicit about all four options for the hospital's future. It was sent by Rachel Tyndall from the north central London sector to all the chief executive officers and medical directors of the relevant hospitals, and all four options showed that the Whittington would have no emergency take in future. That is how it was. As soon as the letter went public, however, it was retracted-to an extent-and became a proposal for local hospital designation, which would mean a reduction in services. There certainly would not be 24-hour care; there certainly would not be emergency care; and the hospital certainly would not retain the intensive therapy units, although urgent care of some sort might be provided.
	The proposals have become mushed up with merger talks and service rationalisation, which I accept can be sensible. If the Royal Free hospital and the Whittington hospital both undertake kidney and liver treatment, one could do kidneys and one could do livers. That treatment is not urgent, however, and it does not need to be dealt with in seconds, as accident and emergency cases do.
	The Liberal Democrat and Labour parties on Haringey council have passed a motion to keep the Whittington open. Other services may be dealt with separately, but this issue is all mixed up with the Darzi plan and the proposals on specialist trauma centres throughout London. Interestingly, the plan says that local hospital designation, which is the designation outlined in the second letter, means that one can retain 24-hour accident and emergency care. We should make no mistake: the issue is about budget cuts.
	Local people have responded, and I had more than 1,000 signatures to the petition in the first 48 hours, which was an extraordinary response. They want their local A and E service, and it is absolutely vital that it is retained. Although is not like any other service provided by the hospital, it is important, as the hon. Gentleman said, that its other services are not diminished, because otherwise, the Whittington will wither on the vine. It cannot have escaped people's notice that the land on which it sits is worth a fortune. I do not want to take up any more time, so without adding anything further I thank the hon. Gentleman for letting me speak in his debate.

Mike O'Brien: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) on securing this debate about what is clearly a very important subject for his constituents and for the national health service in north central London.
	I recognise the good work of NHS staff, not just at the Whittington hospital but throughout Islington and north central London. They are constantly striving to deliver better quality health care, benefiting the constituents of my hon. Friend and other hon. Members. Sometimes, it is worth recognising in this place the commitment and dedication of those staff.
	This Government remain committed to supporting health service staff to provide good-quality health services throughout London. We have consistently emphasised the value of strong clinical and local leadership, so that doctors, nurses and other clinicians-those who understand best what their patients need-are at the forefront of the programme to shape the health service locally, in the best interest of patients.
	However, the challenge for the local NHS is to explain to patients, the public and their representatives, including Members of Parliament, where any change might be needed, and to put forward clear proposals for that change. The aim should be to ensure safer, high-quality health care for everyone. However, I understand that there are no formal proposals for north central London at the moment. I do not quite know why managers have decided to start a process of consultation, and they will have to justify the cost of a consultation when there are no clear proposals in place. If there are no clear proposals, and that is what I am led to believe, the concern is why managers have decided to busy themselves consulting on proposals that do not at the moment really exist.
	My hon. Friend's idea is that proposals are being discussed between managers, and that may well be the case-that they are having some discussions. Some of that may have been leaked, but NHS managers must be sure of the issues on which they are going to consult the public. Vague proposals that have no clarity about them and are then put out to consultation on the basis of saying, "Well, let's all talk about what we could do", serve little purpose other than to raise a lot of public concern. Something as woolly and vague as that is a recipe for considerable concern for Members of Parliament and other public representatives, particularly if they are not being properly consulted and need to have these things explained to them. That is a recipe for ending up with confusion. Managers now need to explain very clearly what they are proposing. If they have recruited this organisation, Participate, it is up to them to justify the cost, particularly if local NHS money is being spent on a company that appears to be consulting without including political representatives in the appropriate way.
	Local organisations have the budgets, and they have to justify how they choose to spend them. The local organisation of health care services is not dictated by Ministers or civil servants in Whitehall; it should be led by local health care professionals on the ground, clinically driven, focused on the best outcome for patients and, of course, meeting the highest levels of patient safety.
	The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone) expressed concern that the NHS across London faces cuts, as she put it. I have made it very clear to managers in the NHS that there should be no slash-and-burn cuts and no predicting of the Chancellor's settlements or the outcomes of general elections or any other elections, and I will name and shame those who try to do that. We have said that we want good-quality health services to be delivered, and that should be clinically driven. These decisions should be for those who make the judgments about what is the best care for their patients, not for managers simply deciding what they are going to do with their budgets. It has been the clear view of the Darzi review that the driving force of any change in the health service must be improving the quality of care that patients get.
	The Government have established an independent scrutiny and review process for local service change as part of their commitment to place patients and the public at the centre of health services. If MPs and local councillors have any concerns about proposals coming from their local health services, I urge them to engage directly with primary care trusts, who are responsible for developing any proposals for change. I know that there have already been some meetings locally, and PCTs have assured me they would welcome any discussions with MPs. However, if there are significant local concerns, then the health and well-being scrutiny committee can refer proposals for any reconfiguration to the Secretary of State for Health, who in turn may decide to refer the case to the Independent Reconfiguration Panel for consideration and independent advice. Ministers will be prepared to look at any such referral by a health and well-being scrutiny committee or any overview and scrutiny committee of a local council. I want to make that clear; I know that local managers in the health service are clear about it.

Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Minister confirm that nothing in the plans for the future of the NHS includes the removal of 24-hour accident and emergency services where they are clearly identified as being necessary and vital in an area of rising population with an extremely large day time transient population who obviously need to have access to A and E just like everybody else?

Mike O'Brien: The priority for any reconfiguration must be patient safety. Any reconfiguration or examination of the quality of services, whether they be A and E or any other kind of service, must be on the basis that the clinically led judgment is that the quality of patient care will be improved by the change.
	I know I am being slightly oblique, because I do not want to venture into the detail of local decisions that need to be arrived at, but it is clear that if the quality of care for local people will not be better as a result, a reconfiguration should not be proceeded with. If it will improve the quality of patient safety and care, of course it needs to be examined properly.
	The north central London sector involves five PCTs-Barnet, Camden, Enfield, Haringey and Islington, serving a combined population of 1.3 million people. Despite the headlines, it is worth noting that the review of the sector is at a very early stage of development. That is why it is surprising that some people are already supposedly carrying out consultations. Managers ought to draw up clear proposals, then put them to the public, have a proper consultation and listen to what is said. It is important that that be a genuine consultation and that people be listened to and their views properly taken into account before any decisions are arrived at. I am told that the local NHS is working closely with clinicians and will engage in due course with the general public on any proposals that might come forward.

Lynne Featherstone: With the sort of letters that are going out, the fear is that when the options for consultation finally come forward to the public, which will be in September 2010, there will not be a 24-hour A and E in them and that option will not be on the table for the public to let the authorities know about it. That is why we need to hear public voices now, because there may not be any option that says, "Keep the Whittington A and E open." The options that will be consulted on will not be the ones that the general public want.

Mike O'Brien: I am slightly confused as to quite what the hon. Lady is suggesting. Is she saying that she wants a consultation when there are no proposals, or that she wants to wait and see what the proposals are so that there is something to consult on? It is not entirely clear.

Lynne Featherstone: I was trying to say that if people across Islington and Haringey did not make it known now how passionately they feel about the A and E at the Whittington, they might find that the options that come forward for consultation next September contain nothing that they actually want.

Mike O'Brien: The hon. Lady appears to suggest, then, that a consultation should happen now. That is a matter for her to engage with the PCT on, but it seems to me that it is always better to have something on the table so that people know what they are talking about, rather than to have some vague and general consultation. She appears to think that there should just be general discussion, and that is for her to take up with the PCT.
	I understand that the Whittington Hospital NHS Trust and the Royal Free Hampstead NHS Trust have been in discussion about how they can work more closely together in a number of ways. They already have some successful joint working practices in place. For example, some clinicians work across more than one site, and the Whittington, Royal Free and University College hospitals collaborate on matters such as urology. As I understand it, they are holding further discussions with staff as work progresses.
	Any changes that the trusts might wish to make should be underpinned by a proper process, so that the public are aware of them and know what is being discussed. An options appraisal, followed by a strategic outline case, would need to be endorsed by the trust boards, the relevant PCTs, the sector chief executive and the strategic health authority. As I understand it, nothing has been put before either board yet.

Emily Thornberry: Does my right hon. Friend therefore agree with us that the case for the closure of the Whittington hospital A and E department has yet to be made?

Mike O'Brien: I entirely agree that the case for the closure of the Whittington hospital A and E department, if such a proposal were ever made, has yet to be made. As I understand it, the situation is that some vague discussions are going on. Local people have expressed their views, as have my hon. Friend and others, and it is now a matter for the PCT to decide how properly to proceed. However, I would tell the PCT to proceed with caution. Local people will have a view and the NHS needs to consult them properly. They ought to know what the ideas and so on are on the table in order to express a clear view about them.
	My right hon. and hon. Friends have expressed very clearly their views about these matters and the importance to local people of the Whittington hospital, including its A and E department, and I am sure that those on the PCT will have heard those words very forcibly indeed.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 House adjourned.